The Mills Theory principle states that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. I disagree to his statement because not all deeds that lead to happiness are considered correct. Like for example, the act of well – known Robin Hood, doing charity but by means of stealing is not right but he makes people happy. The end does not justify the means. Because in reality, even if his purpose is good but the way he did the action is not morally good.
On the other hand, the statement “an action is wrong if it leads to sorrow or loneliness” is not true. For example, a person works abroad for better life for his family, he is lonely as well as his family, but it’s not wrong because his goal is met to provide for his family. Another example is Spider Man who has a great responsibility to mankind so he sacrifices his love for the benefit of many. He is lonely because he cannot enjoy his love but his duty to save the world is not wrong. Another view that I don’t agree with Utilitarianism is in making choices. Not all obvious choices are correct and justifiable.
Like for example, sacrificing the life of a person for the benefit of the people living in a certain place who are accusing him just because there is no evidence to prove that he’s not the killer is the stand of Utilitarians, but for me, it’s not moral and fair to kill an innocent person just because it is obvious that majority condemn him. Justice should prevail against any other reasons and judgment must come from the due process of law. The next thing that I don’t like about Utilitarianism is that it shows no moral responsibilities to the loved ones and trusted friends.
Example, if two persons ask favor from me, one is my friend and the other is my doctor, from Utilitarian’s point of view, he would choose the person who has a great utility for him which is obvious the doctor but for me I would rather choose my friend because he’s closer to me. These are my proofs that I don’t like the theory of Utilitarianism. Defending the theory of Utilitarianism is exercised by John Stuart Mill through the influence of his father James Mill and Jeremy Bentham. The original meaning of Utilitarianism is that many people would experience greatest happiness because of one’s good deed.
Thus, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” is John Stuart Mill’s theory which gives emphasis for the significance of utilitarianism as an ethical theory and to defend the erroneous notions about it. He believes that happiness is a pleasure and the pain is not present. As for his prominent saying “It is better to be Socrates unsatisfied, than a pig satisfied,” because according to him, pleasure varies from its quality and quantity that pleasure gains from intellectual is higher that physical pleasure.
Mill holds the idea that happiness is the greatest desire of all people. He confirms this by exposing the whole meaning of happiness through the things that people desire. Mill’s theory also discusses that the utility is the basis of right conduct. One must be sacrificed to save the greater part of the people is also the idea of Mill. Like for example, in a hospital, the doctor will save the six sick patients by using the functioning organs of one healthy patient. Although, the doctor doesn’t want to sacrifice the well patient, he is obliged to do it for the benefit of the sick patients.
For the side of Utilitarianism the correct thing to do is to take the life of one healthy patient to be able to save and allow the other six to live, because it is much better for one person to die than to sacrifice the life of the majority. The highest virtue according to Mill is the readiness to sacrifice one’s happiness for the sake of others. Example, a taxi driver with his four passengers happens to notice the uncontrolled moving vehicle towards them; he suddenly pulls the steering wheel facing to his side when the other vehicle nearly collides to the passengers’ area, to save them.
And the vehicle bumps to the driver’s seat causing his death. Sacrifice is justified if it benefits the others. I consider Mills theory as a not good one because it contains principles that are not fair and righteous. Utilitarianism makes choices easy by choosing the obvious choice decided by the majority even if it’s not righteous. Killing an innocent person because it is the majority choice is bad. Utilitarianism doesn’t give moral importance to contracts and oath. Promises are broken and contracts are disregarded for the benefit of the majority. Contracts are binding and legal regardless of its recipient’s member.
Broken promises reflect the kind of person who rendered the promise. I go against from the view of Utilitarianism because it shows utility as the foundation of morality. An action is right if its utility increases. Not all actions that have great utility are right. For example, killing a hostage taker has a great utility because the hostages became free. But morally speaking, killing is still a crime. Utilitarianism gives no importance to moral responsibilities to loved ones and close friends. I have a responsibility to my sisters and brothers. But for Utilitarianism, a person with great utility is more important.
Utilitarianism is not good because it says that sometimes that wrong thing is the right thing to do. Example is torturing; a person is being tortured so as to force the accused to declare his other accomplice of the crime. This is not good because once the accused is not proven guilty should be free from physical punishment. Utilitarianism gives equal right to a person to be happy, but a person is entitled to be happy if he is good only. Reference Mill, JS. Utilitarianism. Spark Notes, http://www. sparknotes. com/philosophy/utilitarianism/summary. html.Sample Essay of BuyEssay.org