In certain extracts of John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism,” he argues, “that the only ends of human life are pleasure and the avoidance of pain, so that anything else is bound ultimately to turn in some way on these ends” (Mill 127). Essentially this means that Mill believes that pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the guiding source when it comes to making decisions regarding moral dilemmas. This claim also involves stating that utility is the ultimate source for decision making. Utility is used to guide choices by determining which decision will account for the most pleasure or the outcome which will allow for the least amount of pain. To put it frankly Mill thinks that the best way to solve a moral dilemma is to determine what outcome
…show more content…
A good way to refute this point is to discuss a hypothetical scenario and apply Mill’s thesis to the scenario and see if it fits well. Consider a poor man whom is desperate for food. This man’s avoidance of pain or pursuit of pleasure would involve obtaining food to satisfy his hunger. Despite his hunger the man is poor and would need to steal food in order to achieve his desired pleasure. Imagine the man steals food from a supermarket and makes it out with the food, but an attendant at the supermarket is fired from his position because he failed to notice the man stealing food. This scenario is an interesting one to apply to Mill’s thesis because the man who stole food sought out the option that produced the most amount of happiness. Despite this it is not the best option for solving the moral dilemma. The man could have gone elsewhere to find food at a homeless shelter or found a more honest means to achieve pleasure. Considering how he achieved the food it appears that under the happiness principle he made the correct decision because he achieved pleasure it the quickest and easiest way possible for him. In reality though the employee took the fall for the food being stolen and therefore was not able to avoid pain or receive
A good way to refute this point is to discuss a hypothetical scenario and apply Mill’s thesis to the scenario and see if it fits well. Consider a poor man whom is desperate for food. This man’s avoidance of pain or pursuit of pleasure would involve obtaining food to satisfy his hunger. Despite his hunger the man is poor and would need to steal food in order to achieve his desired pleasure. Imagine the man steals food from a supermarket and makes it out with the food, but an attendant at the supermarket is fired from his position because he failed to notice the man stealing food. This scenario is an interesting one to apply to Mill’s thesis because the man who stole food sought out the option that produced the most amount of happiness. Despite this it is not the best option for solving the moral dilemma. The man could have gone elsewhere to find food at a homeless shelter or found a more honest means to achieve pleasure. Considering how he achieved the food it appears that under the happiness principle he made the correct decision because he achieved pleasure it the quickest and easiest way possible for him. In reality though the employee took the fall for the food being stolen and therefore was not able to avoid pain or receive