John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)

JOHN STUART MILL (1806 – 1873) John Stuart Mill, an admirer and follower of Bentham, expanded and waited for Jeremy Bentham's theory in his 1861 book. Utilitarianism. While Mill agreed and improved on many of Bentham's theories. He disagrees with the belief that quantity of pleasure is better than quality. Mill noted that, because Bentham ignored qualitative differences, there was no difference between the value of human pleasure and the value of animal pleasure. Thus, the moral status of man is the same as the moral emptiness of man Although Mill was convinced that pleasure differed in quality, he proved that quality was incalculable (thus showing that Bentham's calculus of crime was absurd). For Mill. Only those who have experienced high pleasures and low pleasures will dare to judge their qualities, and this process will lead to the creation of moral values that will encourage higher pleasures (which he believes are mostly intellectual), even if the lower pleasures (which he believes are mostly physical) momentarily more intense. According to Mill, happiness is hard to achieve. So, instead of seeking pleasure, people are morally justified to instead find ways to make the total amount of their pain more than their actions. The utilitarian form of utilitarianism also allows for the ability to sacrifice pleasure and experience pain if the result is for the greater good of everyone. Mill responded to criticism that utilitarianism asks too many people by explaining that most good actions are not meant for the benefit of the world, for the benefit of the dividends that shape the world. It is this private benefit that most people do, and rarely everyone has the power to be a philanthropist to the public. TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM While there are many types of utilitarianism, the two most recognizable forms are the act of utilitarianism and the rules of utilitarianism. Acting utilitarianism In act utilitarianism, only the resuits and sequences of an action are taken into accou:at, and an action is considered morally correct when it creates the best (or least bad) outcome for the greatest number of people. Act utilitarianism looks at every individual action and takes into account utility whenever that action is performed. Morality is then determined by how useful the outcome is for the greatest number of people affected. However, the act of utilitarianism has its critics. Not only can it prove challeding under the act of utilitarianism to have complete knowledge of the consequences of one's actions; This principle also allows non-verbal actions to be allowed. Examples. If there is a war between two countries and the war can end in the search for the whereabouts of a man who is in hiding, then the act of utilitarianism declares that torturing the boy, who attacked his father's location. What morals are justified Rules of utilitarianism While utilitarianism law looks at the result of a single action, the rules of utilitarianism measure the result of an action because it is repeated through time, as if it were a rule. According to the rules of utilitarianism, an action is considered morally correct if it conforms to a rule that leads to great happiness. The rules of utilitarianism state that an action is morally correct based on the truth of its rules. When a rule is correct and followed. The result is a large amount of goodness or happiness that can be achieved. According to the rules of utilitarianism, while following the rules may not lead to the greatest overalian happiness, not following the rules will not be good. The rules of utilitarianism also face criticism. For example, the rules of utilitarianism, it is very possible to create unfair rules. A perfect example of this is slavery. The rules of utilitarianism can claim that slavery is morally correct if the mistreatment of a select group of people results in overall happiness. WHICH IS RIGHT OR WRONG? In both the act of utilitarianism and the rules of utilitarianism, no one is ever only right or wrong itself no matter the type of utilitarianism, no form seems to require an absolute prohibition on lying, cheating. Or stealing. In fact, utilitarianism sometimes requires us to lie, cheat, or steal as long as it is the route through which maximum happiness is achieved (although according to the rules of utilitarianism, activities such as lying, cheating, and stealing will undermine the trust of human society, and any rule that allows such actions cannot maximize utility if it unites sally acoptedi). In utilitarianism, morality is always based on the consequences that arise as a result of an action, and is never based on actual actions. Because it focuses on consequences rather than intentions, the moral value of an action seems to be a matter of luck. The final consequences of an action must be real before it can be determined whether it is good or bad. However, we can imagine actions with good intentions that end up being bad, as well as actions with bad intentions that have good results. In addition, because it is necessary to determine how many people will be affected, how deeply they will be affected, and what alternative impacts are available. Utilitarianism provides many opportunities to make wrong calculations. Therefore. Although utilitarianism does a pretty banil job. G deceptive behavior, seems to be a weak moral theory.