In “Utilitarianism,” John Stuart Mill argues that consequences of an action are all that really matter. Defining utilitarianism at its core, is a theory holding that the moral rightness and/or wrongness of an action depends entirely on the consequences of that action. Thereby agreeing that an action or decision is considered good if it generates happiness and bad if it generates the reverse. In his ethical approach, Mill suggests that the measure of success and happiness depends on how many people and how much happiness was developed as a result of that action, or the “greatest happiness principle.” This principle, Mill declares, “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the
…show more content…
In each of these examples, Mill’s approach was recognizably applied in order to exemplify how the concept of utility can often be manipulated in certain cases to identify a morally wrong action as being morally right, exhibiting a false allegation on Mill’s part. Challenging his claim; just because an action results in happiness and pleasure for the greater number of people does not justify the moral value of that action. Both agents in the two cases knew that the outcome of their action would result in more people being saved, but the manner in which they saved those five people was morally wrong. Just because the results of an action are to be considered “good” does not intend that the action itself is also good. Relying on how an act will play out and how it will effect others as a means of identifying its moral worth is an unreasonable approach. It is out of the power of Mill’s ethical claim to capture whether or not the consequences of certain actions are to be acknowledged as good or bad. Solely centralizing on the power of an action’s outcomes is merely not enough to classify the act as just or unjust. Rather, by recognizing the importance of an action’s principle, or reason to determine its true moral worth; and therefore neglecting the ethics behind John Stuart Mill. Work
In each of these examples, Mill’s approach was recognizably applied in order to exemplify how the concept of utility can often be manipulated in certain cases to identify a morally wrong action as being morally right, exhibiting a false allegation on Mill’s part. Challenging his claim; just because an action results in happiness and pleasure for the greater number of people does not justify the moral value of that action. Both agents in the two cases knew that the outcome of their action would result in more people being saved, but the manner in which they saved those five people was morally wrong. Just because the results of an action are to be considered “good” does not intend that the action itself is also good. Relying on how an act will play out and how it will effect others as a means of identifying its moral worth is an unreasonable approach. It is out of the power of Mill’s ethical claim to capture whether or not the consequences of certain actions are to be acknowledged as good or bad. Solely centralizing on the power of an action’s outcomes is merely not enough to classify the act as just or unjust. Rather, by recognizing the importance of an action’s principle, or reason to determine its true moral worth; and therefore neglecting the ethics behind John Stuart Mill. Work