Word Count: 1583
The Insufficiency of the Exponential Greatest Happiness Principle
Utilitarianism is a moral theory in which one decides which action is preferable by which action results in the best balance of good over evil. John Stuart Mill writes about the greatest happiness principle in his essay, “Utilitarianism”. Mill’s principle utility is based off of utilitarianism. The principle of utility states that actions are morally permissible based on the fact that they promote more happiness than “reverse happiness”. Mill defines happiness as the feeling of enjoyment and lacking of pain. He defines “reverse happiness” as the opposite, the feeling of pain and lacking of enjoyment and all things good. Mill argues that the only ending that we …show more content…
As he is growing older, his health is declining. Now the philanthropist has been working his entire life to serve others, and so by the principle of utility would be in good moral standings because he has increased the net total happiness of society. As he is getting older, the man no longer has as much energy to do the volunteer work that he is committed to and would like to spend more time resting. According to Mill’s theory of utility, his time would be better spent following through on his volunteer commitments than resting, but according to his doctor’s it would be better for him to be resting because of his declining health. In this case the philanthropist would have to choose between his own happiness and that of the society. Mill would recommend that the philanthropist continue his work, even at the risk of his own health, to increase others’ …show more content…
He himself says that the job of ethics is to create tests so that one can derive what are morally permissible actions. Mill shows utilitarianism’s test is that one should calculate the net happiness of each possible action, and choose the one that results in the largest total net happiness. One should always be working to increase the total net happiness by working with the good of society in mind and participating in higher pleasures instead of lower pleasures, but puts no limit on how much one person should work to increase the net happiness of the society instead of one’s own happiness. In the case of the philanthropist, one would generally agree that he should not work as much, but a utilitarian would say that he should continue to work because it would increase the good of the society. And in the case of a drowning person in a storm, a utilitarian would say that the first responder should break the first responder rule of self, if the person was worth risking the rescuer’s life. Since both of these situations show that utilitarianism is not always consistent with our morals as Mill defends the principle, it can be determined that utilitarianism may not be a successful moral theory that aligns with our general moral
The Insufficiency of the Exponential Greatest Happiness Principle
Utilitarianism is a moral theory in which one decides which action is preferable by which action results in the best balance of good over evil. John Stuart Mill writes about the greatest happiness principle in his essay, “Utilitarianism”. Mill’s principle utility is based off of utilitarianism. The principle of utility states that actions are morally permissible based on the fact that they promote more happiness than “reverse happiness”. Mill defines happiness as the feeling of enjoyment and lacking of pain. He defines “reverse happiness” as the opposite, the feeling of pain and lacking of enjoyment and all things good. Mill argues that the only ending that we …show more content…
As he is growing older, his health is declining. Now the philanthropist has been working his entire life to serve others, and so by the principle of utility would be in good moral standings because he has increased the net total happiness of society. As he is getting older, the man no longer has as much energy to do the volunteer work that he is committed to and would like to spend more time resting. According to Mill’s theory of utility, his time would be better spent following through on his volunteer commitments than resting, but according to his doctor’s it would be better for him to be resting because of his declining health. In this case the philanthropist would have to choose between his own happiness and that of the society. Mill would recommend that the philanthropist continue his work, even at the risk of his own health, to increase others’ …show more content…
He himself says that the job of ethics is to create tests so that one can derive what are morally permissible actions. Mill shows utilitarianism’s test is that one should calculate the net happiness of each possible action, and choose the one that results in the largest total net happiness. One should always be working to increase the total net happiness by working with the good of society in mind and participating in higher pleasures instead of lower pleasures, but puts no limit on how much one person should work to increase the net happiness of the society instead of one’s own happiness. In the case of the philanthropist, one would generally agree that he should not work as much, but a utilitarian would say that he should continue to work because it would increase the good of the society. And in the case of a drowning person in a storm, a utilitarian would say that the first responder should break the first responder rule of self, if the person was worth risking the rescuer’s life. Since both of these situations show that utilitarianism is not always consistent with our morals as Mill defends the principle, it can be determined that utilitarianism may not be a successful moral theory that aligns with our general moral