John Stuart Mill's 'Utilitarianism'

In John Stuart Mill’s influential book “Utilitarianism”, Mill introduces the belief that moral action is based upon the concept of utility, or how he explains it, the greatest happiness principle. It is this greatest happiness principle that defines Utilitarianism as the notion that the best moral actions are those that promote the most amount of human happiness. Actions that would be regarded as the least favorable are those that promote the opposite, unhappiness. The concept of Utilitarianism and that of Consequentialism are similar as both judge the moral value of an action dependent on its consequences, however each claim leads to different conclusions. As stated before Utilitarianism describes that we as a society attempt to find pleasure …show more content…
It is believed that it is too strict a requirement for Utilitarianism to imply that we should always act solely to maximize happiness. It is then asking too much of people to be always centrally focused on promoting happiness for the general human population. Mill responds to such criticism by stating that “…no system of ethics requires that the sole motive of all we do shall be a feeling of duty,” but rather that “utilitarian moralists have gone beyond almost everyone in asserting that the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action though it has much to do with the worth of the agent.” (13) This therefore, asserts that the motives behind an action will have nothing to do with whether or not we should complete an action solely based on its morality. He states that the great majority of these good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that of its …show more content…
Millions of people in the region are refugees from war who face both constant poverty and are prone to the calamities causes by natural disasters. Singer believes that the suffering is not too far gone to the point in which actions by richer nations, to help aid in the countries dire situation, can prevent the aching. He asserts that neither individuals nor foreign government have given a proper attempt to help save the crisis. He believes that the individuals should be donating large sums of money, holding public demonstrations, or have done more of anything to provide the Bengal refugees for their basic essentials. As far as government action by foreign nations, whatever funds a nation may have set aside for relief, no sum of money has yet been sufficient enough to provide refugees with enough supplies to help them survive more than just a couple of days (230). Singer sets the stage for his argument by his first premise, which he believes most would agree too, that human suffering and death due to a deficiency of food, shelter, and medical aide are bad (231). Secondly, he states that if it is in one’s power to prevent something bad from happening, without having to sacrifice anything of equal moral importance, we morally ought to do it. He implies that