John Stuart Mill Vs Qualitative Utilitarianism

In ethics there are hundreds of theories that try to define morality. Utilitarianism is one of these theories that seems to simply be that if one is being moral, their decisions will create the greatest amount of happiness for everyone (Clark & Poortenga, 2003). This theory has been defended by many, including Jeremey Bentham, who popularized quantitative utilitarianism, and John Stuart Mill, who believed that utilitarianism was actually qualitative (Wilkens, 2011). While utilitarianism as a whole can seem clear-cut, John Stuart Mill’s theory of qualitative utilitarianism has many ethical problems, and is too simple to accurately address every moral decision. Utilitarianism is a fairly popular viewpoint when it comes to morality because it …show more content…
Mill bases his theory in human psychology, saying that desire is universal regardless of one’s religious convictions. He also recognizes that human pleasures differ in quality, not just quantity (Clark & Poortenga, 2003). Mill believed that human higher desires are those of reason and intellect while the lower desires are based on our immediate and biological needs and wants. Mill found that it is impossible to quantify lower desires because they are innate and natural. Some strengths of qualitative utilitarianism are that it does take into account natural human desires and gives them weight in order to help make an ethical decision (Wilkens, 2011). Utilitarianism’s goal is to promote goodness and happiness and focuses on how no individual’s happiness is more valuable than that of any other. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same definition of goodness. This is the key flaw in utilitarianism because like in the example of man trapped in the electrical hub, it can be skewed by number of people it may affect. Another flaw in utilitarianism is that it does not take into account justice or laws of any kind. If the government attempted to use utilitarianism to justify it’s laws, even if they are trivial like jaywalking, there can be an extensive argument on both sides of the issue and no decision could ever be made. If utilitarianism is placed only upon individuals when making relatively small or personal decisions it can be very useful. A perfect example for this would be the “trolley allegory” where a trolley driver has to make the decision whether to accidentally kill five or only one maintenance man. His breaks are not working and the maintenance workers are completely oblivious to the oncoming danger, he has to make a choice weather to keep going straight killing five workers or make a turn where there is only one worker in the way of the