In Chapter 2 of “Utilitarianism,” John Stuart Mill argues for Utilitarianism as a moral theory by considering several objections and addressing misconceptions. His definition of Utilitarianism relates to Theory of Right Action and Theory of the Good.
The Theory of Right Action is connected to Consequentialism. The Theory of Right Action states that only the outcomes, or consequences, of an action determine how right the action is. Intentions are irrelevant. An action is right in proportion to the good consequences produced and wrong in proportion to the adverse consequences produced.
Theory of the Good defines which outcomes count as good or bad by calling upon hedonism. In utilitarianism, the ultimate positive value is pleasure and the ultimate …show more content…
Up until this point, we have considered act utilitarianism, where each act’s rightness judged by its own outcomes. Rule utilitarianism, which Mill appears to support, does not view acts individually but as instances of rules. If in most instances a type of act will not produce more happiness than unhappiness, then the rule would be that this type of act should not be done, regardless of whether a particular instance will maximize happiness (Nathanson). In the previous example, since most instances of drunk driving would produce net unhappiness, even if this instance of drunk driving happened to produce more happiness than unhappiness, rule utilitarianism would still call it a morally wrong action.
Mill never explicitly states that he supports rule over act utilitarianism. However, several passages from “Utilitarianism” imply that his beliefs were closer to rule. Mill mentions that “subordinate principles” would be required to apply the primary principle governing morality (936). He claims that the “rules of morality” are improvable and that trying to “test each individual action directly by the first principle” is impossible (Mill 936). By saying this, he appears to be implying that rules should be used to judge the morality of each act rather than judging each act …show more content…
An objection could be raised that all problems preventing universal happiness will not be solved with time. Mill claims that all problems are “conquerable by human care and effort” (931). As an example, he states that poverty can be completely fixed by the wisdom of society and individuals (Mill 931). Without a more specific argument, it’s hard to determine if this is possible, but if it is, the question becomes not can it be fixed but will it. Mill makes little argument for why this care and effort will be put into solving these problems. Mill expects people to be altruistic enough to provide enough care and effort to solve these issues. In the current world, there are plenty of people who do work towards solving the key issues in the world like poverty and disease. While the total impact this has is major, it has never been enough to mostly eradicate a whole class of issues. To do so would require a level of altruism not currently found in the world. Going back to the poverty example, wealth is not even remotely evenly spread nor is the world heading in a direction that would allow that, and there no evidence that this will change. While many people do work towards improving conditions, Mill acts as if it’s inevitable that humanity will fix itself without providing any evidence. The problem with Mill’s claim is that it requires most individuals to be more altruistic than appears
The Theory of Right Action is connected to Consequentialism. The Theory of Right Action states that only the outcomes, or consequences, of an action determine how right the action is. Intentions are irrelevant. An action is right in proportion to the good consequences produced and wrong in proportion to the adverse consequences produced.
Theory of the Good defines which outcomes count as good or bad by calling upon hedonism. In utilitarianism, the ultimate positive value is pleasure and the ultimate …show more content…
Up until this point, we have considered act utilitarianism, where each act’s rightness judged by its own outcomes. Rule utilitarianism, which Mill appears to support, does not view acts individually but as instances of rules. If in most instances a type of act will not produce more happiness than unhappiness, then the rule would be that this type of act should not be done, regardless of whether a particular instance will maximize happiness (Nathanson). In the previous example, since most instances of drunk driving would produce net unhappiness, even if this instance of drunk driving happened to produce more happiness than unhappiness, rule utilitarianism would still call it a morally wrong action.
Mill never explicitly states that he supports rule over act utilitarianism. However, several passages from “Utilitarianism” imply that his beliefs were closer to rule. Mill mentions that “subordinate principles” would be required to apply the primary principle governing morality (936). He claims that the “rules of morality” are improvable and that trying to “test each individual action directly by the first principle” is impossible (Mill 936). By saying this, he appears to be implying that rules should be used to judge the morality of each act rather than judging each act …show more content…
An objection could be raised that all problems preventing universal happiness will not be solved with time. Mill claims that all problems are “conquerable by human care and effort” (931). As an example, he states that poverty can be completely fixed by the wisdom of society and individuals (Mill 931). Without a more specific argument, it’s hard to determine if this is possible, but if it is, the question becomes not can it be fixed but will it. Mill makes little argument for why this care and effort will be put into solving these problems. Mill expects people to be altruistic enough to provide enough care and effort to solve these issues. In the current world, there are plenty of people who do work towards solving the key issues in the world like poverty and disease. While the total impact this has is major, it has never been enough to mostly eradicate a whole class of issues. To do so would require a level of altruism not currently found in the world. Going back to the poverty example, wealth is not even remotely evenly spread nor is the world heading in a direction that would allow that, and there no evidence that this will change. While many people do work towards improving conditions, Mill acts as if it’s inevitable that humanity will fix itself without providing any evidence. The problem with Mill’s claim is that it requires most individuals to be more altruistic than appears