Within my paper I plan to explain and criticize the moral theory of act utilitarianism. In the history of utilitarianism John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an important philosopher who in the 19th century was an important defender of personal liberty. When it comes Mills theories he has made a major impact on philosophical work and also an impact when it comes too things economically, politically, and socially. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory that is based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." (43, Mills). He also adds that “happiness is a pleasure in the absence of pain.” (43, Mills). He also begins to argue that pleasure can
…show more content…
Hedonism is the view that pleasure is a good that ought to be promoted. Mills utilitarianism is a form of hendonist, because according to him happiness should be understood in the hedonistic terms, as in pleasure and the absence of pain. The greatest- happiness principle means action are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and privation of pleasure. Hedonists believe that different kinds of things can be good, including friends, freedom, and many other things, but hedonists see these as instrumental goods that are valuable only because they play a causal role in producing pleasure and happiness. Pleasure and happiness, however, are natural goods, meaning that they are good in themselves and not because they produce some further valuable thing. Likewise, on the negative side, a lack of food, friends, or freedom is instrumentally bad because it produces pain, suffering, and unhappiness; but pain, suffering and unhappiness or naturally …show more content…
1. If act utilitarianism is true, I must know the consequences of my possible actions before I can choose what to do.
2. But I don’t know the consequences of my possible action.
3. So that means act utilitarianism is false.
To better understand act utilitarianism let’s consider pseudo objections and Mills replies. First, is that there is more to life than pleasure, knowledge, virtue and other things that are important too. Utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy only of swine. Mills replied that utilitarianism requires that we consider everyone’s pleasures and feelings not just our own. Also, he feels that there is more to life than physical pleasure. Pleasures of the higher faculties are of higher quality than physical pleasures and this count for more. Mill: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a philosopher that is dissatisfied than to be a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question". In my opinion I agree with Mills reply, only because it is good to put everyone’s wants and needs before your own
Hedonism is the view that pleasure is a good that ought to be promoted. Mills utilitarianism is a form of hendonist, because according to him happiness should be understood in the hedonistic terms, as in pleasure and the absence of pain. The greatest- happiness principle means action are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and privation of pleasure. Hedonists believe that different kinds of things can be good, including friends, freedom, and many other things, but hedonists see these as instrumental goods that are valuable only because they play a causal role in producing pleasure and happiness. Pleasure and happiness, however, are natural goods, meaning that they are good in themselves and not because they produce some further valuable thing. Likewise, on the negative side, a lack of food, friends, or freedom is instrumentally bad because it produces pain, suffering, and unhappiness; but pain, suffering and unhappiness or naturally …show more content…
1. If act utilitarianism is true, I must know the consequences of my possible actions before I can choose what to do.
2. But I don’t know the consequences of my possible action.
3. So that means act utilitarianism is false.
To better understand act utilitarianism let’s consider pseudo objections and Mills replies. First, is that there is more to life than pleasure, knowledge, virtue and other things that are important too. Utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy only of swine. Mills replied that utilitarianism requires that we consider everyone’s pleasures and feelings not just our own. Also, he feels that there is more to life than physical pleasure. Pleasures of the higher faculties are of higher quality than physical pleasures and this count for more. Mill: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a philosopher that is dissatisfied than to be a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question". In my opinion I agree with Mills reply, only because it is good to put everyone’s wants and needs before your own