Utilitarianism

By Author: Linda Ween
Total Articles: 1
Comment this article

My purpose in this paper is to do two things. Firstly, I shall consider Mill’s attempt to reply to misunderstanding of utilitarianism and clarify the difference between happiness and contentment. Secondly, I shall argue about Mill’s positions concerning the quality of pleasures. I shall assume the abovementioned points by means of analyzing. For this purpose, the main positions of Mill’s statements, his general claims, and his vision of utilitarianism will be thoroughly considered. The assumption of Mill’s viewpoints is very crucial nowadays since such notions as utilitarianism, happiness, moral satisfaction, mental cultivation and many others are probably the most significant current discussions in philosophy and ethics. Moreover, comprehension of utilitarianism might provide the understanding of what is good and what is bad for an individual and society as a whole. Therefore, it is becoming significantly difficult to ignore the problem of misconceptions about utilitarianism. I chose Mill’s clarifying of happiness, usefulness, and morality because, in my opinion, they are the determinant position of understanding ...
... of utilitarianism. In this essay, we will consider them in detail.
The first point of my consideration is Mill’s reply to misconception about utilitarianism. He defines utility as pleasure and painlessness. Thus, all actions and processes that lead to pain and being unhappy are wrong, whereas those that lead to happiness and painlessness are right. Mill claims that this explanation is correct under the framework of utilitarianism. This point of view seems to be reasonable since the main position of utilitarianism is obtaining the biggest possible usefulness for as many people as possible. Taking into consideration Mill’s statement about the equality of utility, happiness, and the absence of pain, the above mentioned reason supports his claim under the present framework and meets its requirements.
The other important issue raised in the article is that a lot of people confuse such notions as happiness and contentment. It is mentioned in the article that people who have higher faculties, as a rule, are less content because of having deeper sense of limitations. Thus, they sacrifice their contentment to obtain moral happiness from bringing something useful to other people. It obviously supports the main position of utilitarianism, since happiness of one is traded for happiness of many. According to Mill, the standards for the utility judgments are based on obtaining pleasure by all people, but not by a single individual. Therefore, Mill’s point of view about the difference between contentment and happiness is well-grounded and furthers comprehension of utilitarianism.
Mill’s clarifications about utilitarianism are very interesting. His most crucial explanation, perhaps, is that it is aimed at obtaining happiness and pleasure. A lot of people have misconceptions about utilitarianism opposing it to pleasure and happiness. Mill, on the contrary, provides an appropriate understanding of it, explaining that reaching pleasure is the goal of utilitarianism. The importance of this clarification is out of any question. It provides the refuting of wrong conception and thereby the possibility of a proper understanding of this ethical issue. Furthermore, right understanding of its notion probably furthers comprehension of what exact values and moral qualities one should have in order to be able to provide usefulness to other people. Besides it, the understanding of such qualities might improve moral standards within the society. Thus, my critique supports Mill’s point of view concerning clarification of utilitarianism.
It should be noticed that, in my opinion, some Mill’s points of view are wrong. For instance, I am against his attempt to settle a definite moral standard that would measure pleasures on the ones of high and low quality. I strongly disagree with this point of view because of it being inadvisable. As it is commonly known, people do some actions according to their habits, views, or tastes. These issues, in their turn, are based on one’s morality. While explaining the quality of one’s morality, utilitarianism compares things that are completely commensurable. It is mentioned in the article that it is unfair to compare eating something and reading a good book. Both of these actions bring absolutely different kinds of pleasure. Neither of these actions is at variance with a high morality. Thus, from the point of view of utilitarianism, one may ask what makes some definite pleasure superior to another one. There can be no definite standard to judge about the quality of a pleasure. Therefore, settling of concrete moral standards of pleasure quality is principally impossible and inadvisable.
Mill could reply to my critique answering that he addresses to issues mentioned by me as well. He suggests that measurement of a moral quality from the point of view of utility is not simply an assessment of one’s psychological experience gained from certain pleasure. It is stated in part 1 that one can find different qualities of pleasure, and only those who have a deep moral comprehension can understand which pleasures are of high or low quality.
As for me, such arguments are not strong enough. When we talk about morality, ethics, theories, everything should be claimed specifically and clearly. The abovementioned reply bears no concrete definition of notions. When one says that a pleasure is of high or low quality, what does he/she definitely mean? Which exact criterion is used to measure quality of a pleasure? Why some certain criterion (for example, educational) fits morality more than others? I do not think that Mill would find an answer to these questions. Therefore, my critique concerning quality of pleasures argues Mill’s point of view. He probably tried to address this issue, but I do not think that he managed to do it.
As one can see, Mill provides an appropriate clarification of utilitarianism as an ethical issue. It furthers understanding of ethics defining what is good for people and the best possible ways to obtain it. Mill tries to reply to the objection that utilitarianism is aimed at obtaining “base” pleasures that, in his opinion, were mostly animalistic ones. However, he fails to explain the quality of pleasures since his statements are in a severe lack of concrete definitions. Thus, it is impossible to clarify critical standards of pleasure quality from the point of view of utilitarianism.
The article was shared by https://bestwritingservice.com/essays/Technology/downloading-music-from-the-internet.html.

I am a leading researcher at https://bestwritingservice.com/. I am fond of conducting researches and surveys for students on various topics. As far as my personality is concerned, I am an open-minded and responsible person. I love what I do and always strive for the best to satisfy the customers.