Utilitarian Vs Mill

Utilitarians argue that the most important principle is the “greatest happiness principle”, or utility. It states that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” or “wrong as they intend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 10). For the utilitarian, the action that helps them gain feelings of happiness are right, and those that take away from it are considered to be wrong or hurtful. Happiness, for Mill and other utilitarians is the presence of intended pleasure and the absence of anything that causes pain. An individual would be considered happy if they are doing something that they enjoy, such as taking a walk or creating artwork. The action should also help generate overall happiness for a large group of …show more content…
First, the individual would have to define what right moral judgement is, in the eyes of utilitarians. For utilitarians, the right action, as stated, would be the one that brings the most pleasure to the individual. In this example, that would be killing the hostage that has caused the abductor mass turmoil in their life. If the utilitarian were to amend their position, it would essentially mean going against what their principles revolve around, which is seeking pleasure and diminishing pain for anybody. There is also the issue of moral flexibility, which “refers to the idea that people are motivated to do the right thing, but a given moral principle can give rise to very different moral judgement and decisions across contexts.” (“Judgement and Decision Making” 6). The utilitarians are a prime example of a group who has moral flexibility in their decisions. For them, the right thing to have done in that situation was to carry out the action that produces the most happiness for the group overall. The group happiness would have more value to the utilitarian than the individual pain that will be caused in the murder of one. For anyone who is not a utilitarian, the right action would have been letting all the hostages go and removing the threat, which would be the abductor. That would be considered the right moral judgement for anyone who values the life of …show more content…
The reason why it is better is because the Kantian approach seems more practical for real world situations than the utilitarian does. It forces the person to think and be conscious of the intentions and the actions that one carries out. If one thinks of it as becoming a universal law that they cannot be exempt from, then they are less likely to commit an action that is considered morally wrong. The utilitarian encourages the individual to seek aggregate happiness for themselves and the group, and to ensure that it happens through any way possible. This opens the possibility to using harmful acts, such as murder, cheating and lying to ensure that group happiness is existent in a large amount. If that were to occur, then people would be prone to deceiving one another and not treating each other as equals. Instead, they would be treating each other as stepping stones to their ultimate goal, without regarding their feelings or the consequences that may arise. Pleasure and happiness can come from more appropriate means, such as from decisions that have been thought over and carried out. The utilitarian approach would create more chaos in the world and skew moral judgement, due to its moral flexibility. Kantians are more concrete in their moral judgement, which make them better to follow. It is more successful in making the right moral