Mill’s theory of utilitarianism is based on “greatest happiness principle” that says “actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse
of happiness” (Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Chapter 5). Mill defines happiness as
pleasure and absence of pain. According to Mill, morality is based on the quality and quantity of
pleasure produced by an action. It is not what you do, but how much of pleasure is produced by
your action is what defines the morality. Everyone desires for pleasure and happiness at the end,
happiness is everyone’s goal. Thus, any event or action is desirable only if leads to higher level
of happiness. When taking moral …show more content…
Some argue that
why do you have to sacrifice your own happiness to be considered moral? Is your happiness not
important? How is it immoral to think about your happiness? In above example of saving a
drowning person, if the person does not go to save drowning person, is it immoral? The person is
probably afraid of himself drowning. In my opinion, giving up your own happiness for others is a
weakness of utilitarianism theory, because, I think, everyone deserves to be happy. Another
weakness of utilitarianism is happiness derived from wrong motive. Sometimes wrong motive or
deed can give happiness to more people. Does that mean somebody who acts with wrong motive
moral? Furthermore, utilitarianism focuses on happiness and pleasure only; sometimes an act can
be moral for reasons other than happiness. Although there are some weakness to utilitarianism
theory of morality, this theory is most persuasive to me.
Least persuasive: Egoism
Egoism, as the name suggests, focuses on I, me and myself mentality. In egoism, unlike
utilitarianism, it is my pleasures or pains that matter not the happiness of other people.