Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 269 views

    Docx

    Uploaded by

    alyssa
    Mill argues that utilitarianism allows for some partiality to oneself and one's family. While it claims everyone's happiness is equally important, it is impossible to consider the interests of all people in the world at once. We should focus on helping those closest to us as well as considering the greater public good. Mill also claims that virtuous people do not always have the goal of achieving the greatest happiness in mind when acting. They may focus more on displaying virtuous characteristics than considering the overall consequences. However, the motives behind an action do not determine its morality - only the consequences, namely whether it increases the total happiness. Finally, Mill responds to the idea that utilitarianism requires too much self-

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Docx

    Uploaded by

    alyssa
    269 views2 pages
    Mill argues that utilitarianism allows for some partiality to oneself and one's family. While it claims everyone's happiness is equally important, it is impossible to consider the interests of all people in the world at once. We should focus on helping those closest to us as well as considering the greater public good. Mill also claims that virtuous people do not always have the goal of achieving the greatest happiness in mind when acting. They may focus more on displaying virtuous characteristics than considering the overall consequences. However, the motives behind an action do not determine its morality - only the consequences, namely whether it increases the total happiness. Finally, Mill responds to the idea that utilitarianism requires too much self-

    Original Title

    docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mill argues that utilitarianism allows for some partiality to oneself and one's family. While it claims everyone's happiness is equally important, it is impossible to consider the interests of all people in the world at once. We should focus on helping those closest to us as well as considering the greater public good. Mill also claims that virtuous people do not always have the goal of achieving the greatest happiness in mind when acting. They may focus more on displaying virtuous characteristics than considering the overall consequences. However, the motives behind an action do not determine its morality - only the consequences, namely whether it increases the total happiness. Finally, Mill responds to the idea that utilitarianism requires too much self-

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    269 views2 pages

    Docx

    Uploaded by

    alyssa
    Mill argues that utilitarianism allows for some partiality to oneself and one's family. While it claims everyone's happiness is equally important, it is impossible to consider the interests of all people in the world at once. We should focus on helping those closest to us as well as considering the greater public good. Mill also claims that virtuous people do not always have the goal of achieving the greatest happiness in mind when acting. They may focus more on displaying virtuous characteristics than considering the overall consequences. However, the motives behind an action do not determine its morality - only the consequences, namely whether it increases the total happiness. Finally, Mill responds to the idea that utilitarianism requires too much self-

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Eloise Zarco

    College of Arts and Sciences

    Dr. Josef Ben Levi

    April 18, 2018

    John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

    1. Utilitarianism claims that my happiness is no more important than yours. This kind of
    impartiality seems highly appealing. But this also appears to prohibit us from giving
    ourselves or our family priority over the interests of other. Is this appearance correct?
    Can utilitarianism allow for partiality to oneself or ones family?

    This is correct because we should always do what is greater for the whole. However, it is
    impossible to think that we will or should act on what will benefit the entire world, “The
    great majority of the actions are intended not for the benefit of the world but for that of
    individuals, of which the good of the world is made up…”. Therefore, we need to act
    upon what will benefit the greater group but also be reasonable in knowing that we
    cannot help everybody unless we work to help the public like politicians. We are only
    intended to help the few people we can but also be mindful of everyone.

    2. Mill claims that virtuous people will rarely have the Greatest Happiness Principle in
    mind when acting. Why does he say this? Is his claim plausible? Why or why not?

    He says this because he believes that people who act upon virtue are solely acting up
    what will bring happiness or the best outcome in that situation. Instead, people should
    act upon what will bring the most happiness rather than focusing on the characteristics
    of virtues. People become so focused on being a virtuous person instead of thinking
    about the greater good. I believe that this is true because people can become so
    focused on the outcome of that situation without thinking about the general good.

    3. Mill believes that the motives that prompt an action are irrelevant to that actions
    morality. Is this claim plausible? Why or why not?

    Yes, because we are born without morality this is something that is acquired. Therefore,
    we need to act upon whatever will bring about the greatest happiness which is
    something that we are all naturally born with. The intuition to know what will bring
    about the best consequence. An action is morally right if it brings about the greatest
    happiness for everybody for a long period of time.
    4. Many critics of utilitarianism claim that the theory requires that we sacrifice too much
    for others. Mill counters by saying that only a very few people are in position to do
    much good for many others; as a result, most of us are not required to focus our
    efforts in ways that requires significant self-sacrifice. Is Mills view too rosy, especially
    now that we are so easily able to learn of how unfortunate others are and are easily
    able to give to charities that can help improve the lives of those who are less well off
    than we are?

    I believe he is right because there is only so much that we can do. We can do what is
    best for everybody but not always because we are not in the position to do so. Unless
    you are a politician, or someone that can make a major impact, then it is hard to do
    what is best for the world. We are very limited in what we can do for the greater good
    therefore we should always think of others but always within reason.

    5. Some have argued that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine. What Is Mills reply to this?
    Do you find it plausible?

    Mills replies by saying, “If it be a true believe that God desires, above all things, the
    happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not
    only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other”. I believe this
    is plausible because utilitarianism is focused on the greater good of everybody, not just
    one person. Even though, Mills argument can be flawed because bad actions can still be
    considered good actions because it can depend on whatever brings the greatest amount
    of happiness. However, he argues that either God made rules for us to follow or did he
    make rules that he knew would bring us happiness.

    You might also like