In this analysis, I intend to establish definitions of direct and indirect normative utilitarianism based on J.S. Mill’s “Utilitarianism” as well as critique of Bernard Williams’ scenario of George the chemist. Mill’s principle of utility describes the idea that one’s actions are morally correct in that they produce happiness for oneself or his or her community and incorrect when they promote pain or suffering. To further capitalize the importance of the principle of utility, Mill makes it out to be the foremost precept of morality, or the “First Principle” of morality.
When Mill establishes the principle of utility as the “First Principle” of morality, he means that it is the foundation of one’s moral compass, that it is similar to the “roots …show more content…
Two possible forms of utilitarianism are direct normative utilitarianism and indirect normative utilitarianism. The first form entails taking inventory of all the possible actions you have at your disposal in the face of a certain situation and choosing the action(s) out of all the plausible, actionable plans of operation that will produce the most amount of happiness for yourself. The latter form describes how one should set for oneself a set of moral guidelines secondary to the overarching principle of utility (e.g. such secondary moral guidelines include honesty, avoidance of murder, etc.) that establish a system of reference upon which one can act morally and produce maximum aggregate …show more content…
Williams uses the idea of consequentialism (the idea that in order to produce the most good for the most amount of people, one must take into account the moral consequences of one’s actions and act according to the analysis of those actions) to criticize utilitarianism by claiming that utilitarianism does not take into account the moral consequences of actions and only focuses on producing the maximum amount of happiness regardless of what the byproducts of creating that happiness may be. In response to that affront, a utilitarian, possibly Jeff, might say that based on the fact that the principle of utility is the first principle of morality, the consequences of one’s actions are secondary to the more important goal of producing the maximum amount of aggregate happiness. Although Williams does not adhere to the aforementioned forms of indirect or direct normative utilitarianism, that does not imply that they both are not valid options in living one’s
When Mill establishes the principle of utility as the “First Principle” of morality, he means that it is the foundation of one’s moral compass, that it is similar to the “roots …show more content…
Two possible forms of utilitarianism are direct normative utilitarianism and indirect normative utilitarianism. The first form entails taking inventory of all the possible actions you have at your disposal in the face of a certain situation and choosing the action(s) out of all the plausible, actionable plans of operation that will produce the most amount of happiness for yourself. The latter form describes how one should set for oneself a set of moral guidelines secondary to the overarching principle of utility (e.g. such secondary moral guidelines include honesty, avoidance of murder, etc.) that establish a system of reference upon which one can act morally and produce maximum aggregate …show more content…
Williams uses the idea of consequentialism (the idea that in order to produce the most good for the most amount of people, one must take into account the moral consequences of one’s actions and act according to the analysis of those actions) to criticize utilitarianism by claiming that utilitarianism does not take into account the moral consequences of actions and only focuses on producing the maximum amount of happiness regardless of what the byproducts of creating that happiness may be. In response to that affront, a utilitarian, possibly Jeff, might say that based on the fact that the principle of utility is the first principle of morality, the consequences of one’s actions are secondary to the more important goal of producing the maximum amount of aggregate happiness. Although Williams does not adhere to the aforementioned forms of indirect or direct normative utilitarianism, that does not imply that they both are not valid options in living one’s