Scan barcode
jbryson's review
4.0
It should go without saying that this book is a must read for any student of philosophical ethics. Having said that, Mill's argument is significantly tautological. He uses several false comparisons in disputing objections to the utilitarianism, including an ad hominem attack on some of its detractors. One wonders if he is referring to Charles Dickens in these attacks.
mmushuni's review
1.0
I don't respect utilitarianism if I'm being honest. I think it is a vast oversimplification of the complexities of life and I don't think Mill makes a super compelling argument that can remedy my own reservations against it
newsh's review
4.0
3.5
Enjoyed mill's expansion on utilitarianism more than Bentham's original explanations, still can't make up my mind about this school of thought,
need to read more
Enjoyed mill's expansion on utilitarianism more than Bentham's original explanations, still can't make up my mind about this school of thought,
need to read more
taylors_literature's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
geraldineleyendo's review
4.0
The foundations of utilitarianism are basic knowledge for any political science student. JSM is brilliant explaining it.
bword's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.75
John Stuart Mill was a mind quite ahead of his time in many ways and this book is able to somewhat present that and shows his genuinely insightful thoughts quite well. His thought is intriguing and although I don't agree with him entirely on many of what he says, his ideas and in turn, this book has allowed me to have a greater understanding of my own beliefs and where I stand on the line of a utilitarian point of view. Maybe I would rate this book higher if it were a little longer with a bit more meat to really get into, because it has truly impacted my thought, but unfortunately I will not give this book entire credit over my reaction to it as I feel it was inevitable that I would reach my discovers and not just because of JSM's way of writing, as talented as he was. Still a very good read for those who wish to dive into utilitarianism and morality.
andredias's review
medium-paced
4.5
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question."
"The most influential philosophical articulation of a liberal humanistic morality that was produced in the nineteenth century", Utilitarianism, is an essay that explains the goals of Utilitarianism by depicting why it is the best theory of ethics. Mill based his theory of Utilitarianism from his master, Jeremy Bentham, the great nineteenth-century legal reformer, who along with William Paley were the two most influential English utilitarians prior to Mill.
The essay is divided into five chapters:
- Chapter 1: General Remarks
- Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is
- Chapter 3: Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility
- Chapter 4: Of what sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible
- Chapter 5: On the Connection between Justice and Utility
The author, startling claims that there's a slow process in Ethics, and then he formulates the main principle of Utility. Throughout the other chapters, it's analysed the common criticisms of utilitarianism, what sanctions are obliged to promote the general happiness, the core of his argument and it concludes by discussing what it's considered "the only real difficulty" with utilitarian ethics within justice.
What are the most important points in Mill's Utilitarianism? The fundamental creed is happiness/well-being as the ultimate end of all Human actions. All human beings seek happiness.
One action is morally correct if it results in the most possible state of happiness/well-being to all the affected individuals. Mill's ethics is a form of consequentialism. Therefore, all actions are correct or incorrect, morally acceptable or unacceptable. All actions must be judged according to the final results of that specific action. Example: Imagine in a casual Museum visit. One of the visitors realises that there are two workers struggling with a painting installation. All of a sudden, that same visitor decides to help them, but unfortunately (by accident), he stumbles upon the painting. The painting falls down and gets highly damaged.
In this example, the individual acts in good will, but in the end, the consequences of his action were a big disaster. Is it possible to say that his action was morally correct? According to Mill, his action was morally incorrect because it brought disastrous consequences. According to this situation, future visitors will not be able to see that painting and the individual must pay for its damages.
Happiness is the ultimate goal of all Human actions: In this perspective, what identifies happiness with pleasure is characterized as Hedonism. Seeking pleasures and avoiding pain. Although, in this pursuit of Happiness, every individual should not forget to maximize his full potential as a Human being. This means that we shouldn't confine our inferior pleasures. Inferior pleasures (corporal and sensory pleasures) isn't more desirable than superior pleasures (intellectual, art, science, etc).
What about immoral acts like killing, stealing? Are those acts immoral in every single situation?
According to Mill, some actions considered morally wrong can bring positive results: The utility principle is a universal principle which everyone should follow. Different actions according to different situations. Not all actions are equal because every action has different consequences.
Lying in court might have negative effects in all the involved ones, but lying in a casual dinner by saying that the food is delicious, in order to not ruin the good ambient of that evening, might bring different results. Stealing is morally wrong, but stealing the pistol of a potential killer is morally correct in the utility perspective. Objective norms are important in order to keep a healthy society alive. However, these norms shouldn't be followed blindly. In the final chapter, Mill makes the direct bound between Utility and justice. He states that the legal system is man-made and therefore, it has its flaws inherent. As a result, there are moments in life that we should question those laws and the conventional norms of society. The punishment for a committed crime should be done according to that specific crime, in an impartial and non-judgmental way. Hence, utilitarianism provides the only rational basis for resolving such conflicts.
The Utility principle helps us in certain life situations, whose moral norms don't own the answer. "What should I do?" It's in such dilemmas where it's presented a moral conflict. In these situations, we are obliged to violate one norm to the detriment of another.
Example: In the movie "Sophie's Choice", one polish woman is arrested by the Nazis with her two children. They are sent into Auschwitz concentration camp. Sophie is not Jewish and she's given a hard dilemma: One of her kids will be spared and the other will be sent to the gas chambers. In agony and despair, she chooses the oldest son. She saves the oldest one and sacrifices the young and fragile girl. Her expectation is that her son is stronger and has higher chances to survive the harsh conditions of the concentration camp. Was her act correct? Sophie acted correctly according to the Utility point of view. Despite the terrible psychological acts inherent in her choice, she managed to save one life (the one that had the highest chances to survive). If she remained choiceless, both kids would certainly die. According to the conventional norms, this situation would be suitable? No...
A good amount of situations in life go beyond moral norms and are not measurable.
The principle of "High happiness" demands impartiality for the most suitable consequences, but that doesn't stand for moral blindness or defence of repugnant acts. Example: Imagine that a group of prison guards take pleasure in torturing prisoners with no apparent reason. Is this action justifiable? Well, in a point of view, merely measurable, consequences that cause high amounts of pleasure would be approved. However, an evaluation should be done when it comes to pleasure. In this example, the pleasure in this sadistic acts committed by the guards doesn't justify morally their actions. Their actions are so low and vile that causes pain and suffering to the prisoners.
Should I take into account my personal happiness or not?: One of the criticisms against the Utilitarianism is that the utility principle demands too much of the moral agent, threatening his personal integrity. Mill doesn't defend that we should abdicate our own happiness on behalf of the happiness of the others. The Harmony of our own interests and the interests of the whole is a singular idea and not a totalitarian project! It's defended that the high principle of Happiness demands that each individual should not separate his happiness and the general happiness of everyone. One should not abdicate his personal projects, interests and personal life on behalf of others.
Mill's utility principle represents a double aspect: It's a hedonist theory and it's consequentialist. Another criticism against the Utilitarianism is the future consequence that a specific action might bring. It's almost impossible to predict the effects of our actions. The only way we can predict a future result is by analysing similar problems of the past. We can learn with our mistakes of the past in order to face our own problems. If our actions might bring future effects, that's something we don't know until a certain amount of time. These effects will take more time to manifest, according to the complexity of these situations. After all, isn't the future uncertain?
There are situations in life that compel quick decisions. Thinking too much in those consequences might paralyze our decisions.
We can conclude that Utilitarianism is a principle used in dilemmas, where moral norms are not able to help in difficult situations. Mill's utility stands for a hedonist way of life but always standing to the consequences of our own actions.
I totally support Mill's point of views. However, there are situations where our goodwill must be taken into account despite the consequences of our actions. Kant's deontological moral is a contrast to the utility point of view, which in certain situations might be useful. Our own personal task is to ask when we should act according to the moral norms or break that same moral norms.
We live in a complex and demanding society, where actions and choices are part of our own lives, and for that reason, we are able to learn with the mistakes of the past and put into test new and challenging dilemmas.
Rating: 4.5/5 Stars
"The most influential philosophical articulation of a liberal humanistic morality that was produced in the nineteenth century", Utilitarianism, is an essay that explains the goals of Utilitarianism by depicting why it is the best theory of ethics. Mill based his theory of Utilitarianism from his master, Jeremy Bentham, the great nineteenth-century legal reformer, who along with William Paley were the two most influential English utilitarians prior to Mill.
The essay is divided into five chapters:
- Chapter 1: General Remarks
- Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is
- Chapter 3: Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility
- Chapter 4: Of what sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible
- Chapter 5: On the Connection between Justice and Utility
The author, startling claims that there's a slow process in Ethics, and then he formulates the main principle of Utility. Throughout the other chapters, it's analysed the common criticisms of utilitarianism, what sanctions are obliged to promote the general happiness, the core of his argument and it concludes by discussing what it's considered "the only real difficulty" with utilitarian ethics within justice.
What are the most important points in Mill's Utilitarianism? The fundamental creed is happiness/well-being as the ultimate end of all Human actions. All human beings seek happiness.
One action is morally correct if it results in the most possible state of happiness/well-being to all the affected individuals. Mill's ethics is a form of consequentialism. Therefore, all actions are correct or incorrect, morally acceptable or unacceptable. All actions must be judged according to the final results of that specific action. Example: Imagine in a casual Museum visit. One of the visitors realises that there are two workers struggling with a painting installation. All of a sudden, that same visitor decides to help them, but unfortunately (by accident), he stumbles upon the painting. The painting falls down and gets highly damaged.
In this example, the individual acts in good will, but in the end, the consequences of his action were a big disaster. Is it possible to say that his action was morally correct? According to Mill, his action was morally incorrect because it brought disastrous consequences. According to this situation, future visitors will not be able to see that painting and the individual must pay for its damages.
Happiness is the ultimate goal of all Human actions: In this perspective, what identifies happiness with pleasure is characterized as Hedonism. Seeking pleasures and avoiding pain. Although, in this pursuit of Happiness, every individual should not forget to maximize his full potential as a Human being. This means that we shouldn't confine our inferior pleasures. Inferior pleasures (corporal and sensory pleasures) isn't more desirable than superior pleasures (intellectual, art, science, etc).
What about immoral acts like killing, stealing? Are those acts immoral in every single situation?
According to Mill, some actions considered morally wrong can bring positive results: The utility principle is a universal principle which everyone should follow. Different actions according to different situations. Not all actions are equal because every action has different consequences.
Lying in court might have negative effects in all the involved ones, but lying in a casual dinner by saying that the food is delicious, in order to not ruin the good ambient of that evening, might bring different results. Stealing is morally wrong, but stealing the pistol of a potential killer is morally correct in the utility perspective. Objective norms are important in order to keep a healthy society alive. However, these norms shouldn't be followed blindly. In the final chapter, Mill makes the direct bound between Utility and justice. He states that the legal system is man-made and therefore, it has its flaws inherent. As a result, there are moments in life that we should question those laws and the conventional norms of society. The punishment for a committed crime should be done according to that specific crime, in an impartial and non-judgmental way. Hence, utilitarianism provides the only rational basis for resolving such conflicts.
The Utility principle helps us in certain life situations, whose moral norms don't own the answer. "What should I do?" It's in such dilemmas where it's presented a moral conflict. In these situations, we are obliged to violate one norm to the detriment of another.
Example: In the movie "Sophie's Choice", one polish woman is arrested by the Nazis with her two children. They are sent into Auschwitz concentration camp. Sophie is not Jewish and she's given a hard dilemma: One of her kids will be spared and the other will be sent to the gas chambers. In agony and despair, she chooses the oldest son. She saves the oldest one and sacrifices the young and fragile girl. Her expectation is that her son is stronger and has higher chances to survive the harsh conditions of the concentration camp. Was her act correct? Sophie acted correctly according to the Utility point of view. Despite the terrible psychological acts inherent in her choice, she managed to save one life (the one that had the highest chances to survive). If she remained choiceless, both kids would certainly die. According to the conventional norms, this situation would be suitable? No...
A good amount of situations in life go beyond moral norms and are not measurable.
The principle of "High happiness" demands impartiality for the most suitable consequences, but that doesn't stand for moral blindness or defence of repugnant acts. Example: Imagine that a group of prison guards take pleasure in torturing prisoners with no apparent reason. Is this action justifiable? Well, in a point of view, merely measurable, consequences that cause high amounts of pleasure would be approved. However, an evaluation should be done when it comes to pleasure. In this example, the pleasure in this sadistic acts committed by the guards doesn't justify morally their actions. Their actions are so low and vile that causes pain and suffering to the prisoners.
Should I take into account my personal happiness or not?: One of the criticisms against the Utilitarianism is that the utility principle demands too much of the moral agent, threatening his personal integrity. Mill doesn't defend that we should abdicate our own happiness on behalf of the happiness of the others. The Harmony of our own interests and the interests of the whole is a singular idea and not a totalitarian project! It's defended that the high principle of Happiness demands that each individual should not separate his happiness and the general happiness of everyone. One should not abdicate his personal projects, interests and personal life on behalf of others.
Mill's utility principle represents a double aspect: It's a hedonist theory and it's consequentialist. Another criticism against the Utilitarianism is the future consequence that a specific action might bring. It's almost impossible to predict the effects of our actions. The only way we can predict a future result is by analysing similar problems of the past. We can learn with our mistakes of the past in order to face our own problems. If our actions might bring future effects, that's something we don't know until a certain amount of time. These effects will take more time to manifest, according to the complexity of these situations. After all, isn't the future uncertain?
There are situations in life that compel quick decisions. Thinking too much in those consequences might paralyze our decisions.
We can conclude that Utilitarianism is a principle used in dilemmas, where moral norms are not able to help in difficult situations. Mill's utility stands for a hedonist way of life but always standing to the consequences of our own actions.
I totally support Mill's point of views. However, there are situations where our goodwill must be taken into account despite the consequences of our actions. Kant's deontological moral is a contrast to the utility point of view, which in certain situations might be useful. Our own personal task is to ask when we should act according to the moral norms or break that same moral norms.
We live in a complex and demanding society, where actions and choices are part of our own lives, and for that reason, we are able to learn with the mistakes of the past and put into test new and challenging dilemmas.
Rating: 4.5/5 Stars