John Stuart Mill is a proponent of consequentialist ethics and refined his understanding of his father’s thinking of Utilitarianism, a theory that looks maximizing the utility of the end results of each action. Mill was an empiricist philosopher and wanted his idea of Utilitarianism to better society and was known for his ideas of social reform such as abolition of slavery and gender equality. Utilitarianism is a special kind of consequentialist theory that relies on the principle of utility. This theory is hedonistic in nature because right actions are those that maximize utility, or happiness, for all individuals involved while at the same time will reduce the unhappiness and pain that may come from a difficult decision. An advantage over
…show more content…
I believe the critics find fault with the theory because the Utilitarianism seems too hedonistic in nature, to the point where some compare the ideals to Epicureanism because the only thing that mattered in life was blind pleasure and avoidance of pain. I find this misleading because both Mill and Epicureans defend their ideals by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures. Mill thinks that intellectual pleasures like philosophy, music, and art have more value than sensual pleasures like gluttonous eating of desserts and sweets. This move towards a more quality over quantity type of hedonism that is best described by the following quote: "It is better (happier) to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Mill’s quality driven hedonistic views differs from the classic utilitarianism ideals of Jeremy Bentham who only sought to maximize the quantity of pleasure. I agree with Mill in his writings because he believes that a higher and lower pleasure can only be decided by someone who has experiences both pleasures in person. A pig that is oblivious to eating spoiled food because it never had fresh food would not make a good judge of what is pleasurable even if they enjoyed themselves. Similarly, someone who never read a
I believe the critics find fault with the theory because the Utilitarianism seems too hedonistic in nature, to the point where some compare the ideals to Epicureanism because the only thing that mattered in life was blind pleasure and avoidance of pain. I find this misleading because both Mill and Epicureans defend their ideals by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures. Mill thinks that intellectual pleasures like philosophy, music, and art have more value than sensual pleasures like gluttonous eating of desserts and sweets. This move towards a more quality over quantity type of hedonism that is best described by the following quote: "It is better (happier) to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Mill’s quality driven hedonistic views differs from the classic utilitarianism ideals of Jeremy Bentham who only sought to maximize the quantity of pleasure. I agree with Mill in his writings because he believes that a higher and lower pleasure can only be decided by someone who has experiences both pleasures in person. A pig that is oblivious to eating spoiled food because it never had fresh food would not make a good judge of what is pleasurable even if they enjoyed themselves. Similarly, someone who never read a