Mill (Utilitarianism)

Reconstruction of Mill’s argument

Stuart Mill produced an argument that was initially meant to explain actions, which individuals take on a daily basis. He argued that, an individual must only act on things and ideas that have the benefit of the majority. All individuals seek to obtain happiness and reduce the pain. Therefore, any act that increases happiness and reduces pain is considered good. It is the outcome of an action that makes it a universal law of happiness (Mill 1). Although people have different ideas about pain and happiness they all choose the same thing. For instance, the people who are simple seek happiness that is based on the senses, while the strong and advanced seek intellectual happiness.  Mill points out of that, intellectual happiness is a higher form of pleasure that last longer than low pleasure. Other than pleasure individuals also seek to maintain virtue and have money.

Mill continues to explain how an action is categorized as a universal law of pleasure. The universal law of pleasure is based on the idea that an action must be achievable in order to be recognized as common law. Since happiness can be achieved it is considered universal. According to Mill, all situations that are similar are considered universal and grouped together to form to common law. For instance, if an individual lies or steals in order to satisfy hunger it is considered ethical and universally acceptable. Mill’s argument can be reconstructed to mean that avoidance of pain and seeking happiness is the only thing that individuals seek for their own benefit. Therefore, happiness and avoidance of pain are the only things that are beneficial and important to humans (Mill 5). If happiness and avoidance of pain are the only things that are important to humans then any act that is geared towards fulfilling that objective is acceptable. Any action that seeks to minimize pain and increase happiness is internally and morally acceptable.

Although Mill is correct in pointing out that all human beings seek to maximize their pleasure and minimize pain, he failed in pointing out that, not all actions that meet the need for pleasure can be considered to be morally acceptable. The world should have specific principles to be used in order to regulate people in their pursuit to happiness and avoidance of pain. It is important to ensure that the moral values of the society are not eroded in the name of pursuing happiness and reducing pain (Mill 8). Some people have negative ways of finding happiness, which can be harmful to other people, which risk the wellbeing of others. For instance, some people may lie or kill in order to get empty pleasure, which violates the ethical code. These violations can set a bad example because it means that all other actions based on similar situations must be in line with that standard. When an action is recognized and acceptable it is included in the universal law, which acts as a benchmark for future events. Therefore, it may mean that when people feel the need to satisfy hunger they are allowed to kill or lie in order to obtain low form of satisfaction.

Another major objection is that human beings have other goals in life other than finding pleasure. There are other important things that people pursue in life and they are as important as happiness. It is clear that people have the capacity to exist without happiness because pleasure does not make the base for life. It is also evident that most people that have attained a good or successful life have managed to live without happiness. For instance, individuals desire to have virtue and eliminate vices. The presence of virtue in the society is presumed to be a major source of satisfaction. In addition, people also desire to have money and plenty of it in order to meet their needs.  Therefore, money is only desirable in relation to what it can be able to achieve or the needs that it is able to meet. According to utilitarian law virtue is desirable because of the level of happiness that it is able to achieve. All people who are considered virtuous have managed to live a life that is free from pleasure both physical and intellectually (Mill 9). For instance, Mother Teresa is one of the most renowned individual because of her contribution to the wellbeing of humanity, even though she denied herself of pleasures of any form.

Additionally, people that, utilitarianism is too broad and only seeks to increase the happiness of other people while denying individuals the pleasure of making personal decisions. According to Mill, virtuous people sacrifice their personal happiness for the greater good of the majority. The greater good is happiness; therefore, virtuous people attain happiness in different ways than what is stipulated by the society. For instance, the happiness of the majority is more valuable than that of a smaller population. This can be considered as a form of injustice because it does not consider the wellbeing of all the involved people.

Mill responded to his critics by pointing out of that, it is ironic for individuals to claim that happiness cannot be obtained while it is actually the essence of life. In addition, happiness is possible for all individuals regardless of their social status. Also, he addresses the issue of personal sacrifice to become virtuous. Utilitarianism is not only based on the happiness of the individual but of other people.

Works Cited

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis, IN. Hackett Publishing. 2^nd edition. 2001. Print.

Click here to place an order  for a similar  paper  and have exceptional work done by our team and get A+results