An Exploration of Utilitarianism
One common school of thought in political philosophy is utilitarianism. The utilitarian justification for the state is that the existence of a state promotes happiness better than if the state didn’t exist. One objection to this is that utilitarianism will require us to do things that we intuitively think are horrible although they might promote overall happiness. In this paper, I will argue that this objection threatens the success of the utilitarian justification for the state because our moral intuitions play a bigger role in our decisions than we think.
Utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism developed in detail by English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, holds that the most correct way for us to live is the way that brings about most happiness or pleasure. In his work, Utilitarianism, Mill writes, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 1). Utilitarians justify the state by asserting that society is morally best when happiness is maximized, and that there are only two ways in which we can live: governed under a state or in the state of nature. In the words of Bentham, “A measure of government …show more content…
While in theory it might sound logical for us to maximize happiness and minimize pain, in practice, many problems arise. Our desire for happiness may cause us to do terrible things in the pursuit of it, we might have differing ideas of what our happiness is, and many of us may argue about what is or is not appropriate to do in order to achieve more pleasure. In conclusion, the utilitarian argument fails, however, there are many important ideals that we can take away from this argument which are very intelligent and effective. Therefore, the utilitarian justification for the state is not successful, since utilitarianism itself is
One common school of thought in political philosophy is utilitarianism. The utilitarian justification for the state is that the existence of a state promotes happiness better than if the state didn’t exist. One objection to this is that utilitarianism will require us to do things that we intuitively think are horrible although they might promote overall happiness. In this paper, I will argue that this objection threatens the success of the utilitarian justification for the state because our moral intuitions play a bigger role in our decisions than we think.
Utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism developed in detail by English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, holds that the most correct way for us to live is the way that brings about most happiness or pleasure. In his work, Utilitarianism, Mill writes, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 1). Utilitarians justify the state by asserting that society is morally best when happiness is maximized, and that there are only two ways in which we can live: governed under a state or in the state of nature. In the words of Bentham, “A measure of government …show more content…
While in theory it might sound logical for us to maximize happiness and minimize pain, in practice, many problems arise. Our desire for happiness may cause us to do terrible things in the pursuit of it, we might have differing ideas of what our happiness is, and many of us may argue about what is or is not appropriate to do in order to achieve more pleasure. In conclusion, the utilitarian argument fails, however, there are many important ideals that we can take away from this argument which are very intelligent and effective. Therefore, the utilitarian justification for the state is not successful, since utilitarianism itself is