ATTENTION:
BEFORE
YOU READ THE CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE
INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000
ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
UTILITARIANISM
IN JOHN STUART MILL (A CRITICAL APPRAISAL)
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
In the
history of philosophy, it is believed that the ultimate end of man is
happiness, and the only way that leads to (through which one achieves) such
goal is by living a moral or virtuous life. Living a virtuous life implies
exhibiting and behaving morally right.
Consequently,
man employs laws of which its objective is to augment the total happiness of
the community as it legislates and protects the people. By the very fact that
certain actions and measures inflict suffering and pain, do not make that
action to be evil or wrong. There are actions that are not pleasurable yet, are
considered morally good and right. Besides, there are yet some other actions
that are pleasurable but are evil and wrong.
Moreover, as
a result of its simplicity and confirmation of the ideology of
majority,pleasure and happiness are what everyone desires, the philosophy of
utilitarianism has claimed the imaginations of (generations) men than any other
way or system of thinking.
The search
for pleasure becomes thus, the motivating force of all the actions of man.
Nonetheless,
our concern here is to examine specific ethical theory and its solution to the
central question of ethics: what is the yardstick for measuring the moral
action of an individual; what is the moral standard of morality? Hitherto, the
moral philosophy of John Stuart Mill is an attempt made or proposed as a guide
to individual’s actions. His doctrine had influence on the thinking and
imagination of men; for it confirmed what most of them already believed as a
general thesis. J.S Mill had shared his father’s as well as Bentham’s
opposition to William Paley’s theological utilitarianism, ethical intuitionism,
moral sense theory of ethics, etc.
As we
highlighted earlier, each ethical system has its own view on what makes the
action of individual right or wrong, good or bad. There is no general agreement
as to the content and the standard norm of morality. Mill, however, did not
allow any appeal to alleged rational intuition. He emphasized on the
consequences of behaviour as the criterion for what is good instead of a
dutiful obedience to formal rules of conduct.
He
maintained that utilitarianism gives these reasons by establishing which rules
under given circumstance lead to happiness or pleasure and those that lead to
unhappiness and pain. The test of a rule of conduct becomes thus, the extent of
its conduciveness to happiness while pleasure and pain, the test of right and
wrong actions. Utilitarianism, therefore, as a moral theory claims and proposes
that the morality of an act consists essentially of its utility as means for
attainment of happiness of man. Hence, an act is good if it is useful in
achieving pleasure and diminishing pain. John Stuart Mill sets out to prove
that the greatest happiness is the sole and ultimate end of man actions
STATEMENT OF
PROBLEM
There have
existed lots of conflicts, disagreements and intolerable attitudes in matters
of moral issues as individuals tend to resist the concerted actions demanded in
a society. Indeed, from the dawn of philosophy, the question concerning the
“Summum Bonum” or “the yardstick for measuring the morality of human actions”
has been accounted the main problem in speculative thought. It therefore, gave
rise to various sects and schools carrying on a vigorous warfare against one
another.
The
utilitarian principle is seen and has been held as the true standard of
morality and most reliable measurement for distinguishing good actions from the
bad actions. The goodness (right) or badness (wrong) of an action lies in its
usefulness as means for attainment of happiness or pleasure and diminishing
pain.
Nevertheless,
the utilitarianism has been unable to deal with certain kinds of moral issues
like rights and justice. There are certain actions that utilitarianism regards
as morally right yet, they violate people’s right and deny them of justice too.
This implies that utilitarianism looks only at how much utility is produced and
fails to take into account how that utility is achieved or distributed among
members of a society. More still, it becomes difficult too to evaluate the
ethical propriety of any decision. It means therefore that utilitarianism seems
to ignore certain important aspects of ethics since; it holds the principle
that right actions in any situation are the one that will produce the greatest
benefit(s). Hence, the end justifies the means but this principle is
unacceptable.
PURPOSE OF
STUDY
Life itself
in a society demands a concerted action. Simply put, people should have the
same kind of attitude in moral terrain. We cannot live at least humanly without
in some ways guide our lives. There ought to be a justification of the human
actions to be executed in view of their end(s) thus- the moral theory among
which is Utilitarianism.
It is
important to note that the subject matter of ethics is human act viewed from
moral rightness or wrongness. Consequently, the theory of Utilitarianism
posited by J.S Mill serves as a social instrument for controlling, designating,
influencing, moulding and redirecting other people’s attitude. The purpose of
this principle (utilitarianism) therefore, should be noted without doubt as to
enable human beings to live good and moral life.
We shall
therefore, examine critically the theory of utilitarianism and its proposition
with a view to helping individuals to be able to approach moral issues with an
open mind thereby building a better society.
SCOPE OF
RESEARCH
This
research work centres on the utilitarian principle as highlighted by John
Stuart Mill. However, other commentaries and views that appraised the
utilitarianism are welcomed.
METHODOLOGY
The method
of approach in this research work is expository. It also employed analytical
and evaluative forms in explaining the doctrine posited by John Stuart Mill for
evaluating and justifying the individual actions as good or bad, right or
wrong.
DIVISION OF
WORK
This
research work is composed of the general introduction with four chapters. The
general introduction relays a brief summary of the doctrine of utility and
influence of J.S Mill as well as methodological consideration of the entire
research work. The chapter one centres on the notion, meaning and forms of
utilitarianism while, the second chapter examines some related literature on
utilitarianism from the history of philosophy.
Chapter
three dwells on the brand of utilitarianism developed by J.S Mill as well as
inquiring the susceptibility of the theory. The final chapter is the area of
critical evaluation and conclusion. It looks further into the implications of
Mill’s utilitarian principle and an awareness of the absolute happiness –God.
CHAPTER ONE
NATURE OF
UTILITARIANISM
1.1 PRELIMINARY REMARK
The
definitions of ‘good’ in the light of theories of ethics raised vexing
questions to the commands, dictates, purposes and imperative consist of the
principle of utility. Some of the definitions refer to it as:
The commands
of God, the dictates of reason, the fulfilment of the purposes of human nature,
the duty to obey the categorical imperative, etc. Hence, John Locke holds that
what has aptness to produce pleasure in us is what we regard as good and what
is apt to produce pain in us, we refer to as evil. David Hume, on the other
hand explains pleasure as sympathy. Accordingly, sympathy is the pleasure we
feel when we consider the pleasure of others.
However,
Jeremy Bentham asserted that man is by nature a pleasure seeking and
pain-avoiding animal. According to him, these two concepts (pleasure and pain)
govern us in all we do, say and think. Utilitarianism therefore, is a moral
theory that holds the thesis that man’s highest good consists in the optimum
realization of the pleasures of which men is capable. It views pleasures and
happiness as the end of man. Consequently, utility means happiness and
pleasure, of which stands for the determinant of morality. Hence, the
utilitarian principle approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever which
appears to have the tendency to augment or diminish happiness. It therefore
acclaims an action to be good when the aggregate of pleasure is greater than
the aggregate of pain.
1.2 WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM
We cannot
appreciate properly the principle of utilitarianism without understanding the
values of the concepts of happiness and pleasure. Every writer from Epicurus to
Bentham, who had maintained the theory of utility, meant by it not something to
be contradistinguished from pleasure but, pleasure itself together with
exemption from pain; for utilitarian principle considers effects like pleasure,
happiness good, evil and pain as it relates to human actions and behaviour.
It must be
noted from the outset that those who stand up for utility as the test of right
and wrong did not use the term in that restricted and merely colloquial sense
in which utility is opposed to pleasure. Utility stands the same thing as
happiness and pleasure. Moreover, the world and new generations have built and
acquired their sole notion of the meaning of utilitarianism from the perverted
use and definition of the term.
Utilitarianism
most generally is described as the doctrine, which states that “the rightness
or wrongness of an action is determined, by the goodness and badness of their
consequence”[1]. It may be put forward either as a system of normative ethics
(i.e. proposal about how we ought to think about conduct) or as a system of
descriptive ethics (i.e. an analysis of how we do think about conduct).
According to
The Concise Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, utilitarianism is a theory
about rightness according to which the only good thing is welfare. For a
utilitarian, morality is convertible with utility. As such utilitarianism could
be defined as an ethical theory, which holds that morality of an act consists
essentially of its utility as means for attainment of happiness of man, which
in most cases is considered temporal[2]. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory
based on the principle of utility i.e. the principle of the greatest good or
happiness. Utility is viewed therefore as the true standard of morality and
most reliable measurement for distinguishing good actions from bad actions
hence, the yardstick with which good actions are distinguished from bad
actions. It implies therefore, that those actions, which produce or tend to
produce pleasure, are good while those that tend to produce pain are bad.
Utilitarianism
implied superiority to frivolity and the mere pleasure of the moment. Of two
pleasures, if there is one pleasure (action) to which almost all who have
experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of
moral obligation, it is regarded as the more desirable pleasure. In his book,
Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill gave his own notion of the term:
The creed
which accepts as the foundation of morals, or the greatest happiness principle
holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness, is
intended pleasure and absence of pain; while unhappiness (refers to) pain and
privation of pleasure.[3]
The Greatest
Happiness principle explains the ultimate end of man as an existence exempt as
far as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyment both in quality
and quantity[4], in respect to and for the sake of all desirable things.
Besides, the theory of life on which this moral theory is grounded is that,
pleasure and freedom from pain are the only thing desirable as ends and, that
all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in
themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of
pain[5].
The
happiness (pleasure) with which utilitarianism is concerned is not that of
egoism. Mill emphasized this point saying that the happiness which forms the
Utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent’s
own
happiness but that of all concerned; as between an individual’s own happiness
and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be strictly impartial as a
disinterested and benevolent spectator. He maintained therefore that:
For that
standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness but the greatest amount of
happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble
character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that
it makes other people happier and that the worlds in general is immensely a
gainer by it.[6]
Hence people
shall always act from the inducement of promoting the general interests of the
society. Pertinent to mention here is that the utilitarian morality conversed
with the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, to do as you would love to be done
by others and to love (your neighbour) as you love yourself. This invariably
reads the complete spirit of ethics of utility.
Utility
therefore enjoins as means of making the nearest approach to its objects, that
laws and social arrangements should place happiness or interest of every
individual in harmony with the interest of the whole.
This could be achieved through education as a
medium to establish in the mind of every individual an indissoluble association
between individual happiness and the good at the society; hence the altruistic
nature of utilitarianism.
Nonetheless,
there is no ethical standard that decides an action to be good or bad, right or
wrong since such a judgment is done by a good, amiable, brave and benevolent
man or the contrary. Moreover, right action does not necessarily indicate a
virtuous character. For instance, to be a good doctor is not the same as being
a good person. One could be a good doctor without being a good person. As such,
there is a difference between perfection in one’s profession and the activity
of the same person as a person. In the long run, however the best proof of a
good character remains good actions. Utilitarianism could, therefore, only
attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character.
1.3 TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM
Here, we are
going to consider five forms of utilitarianism from different perspectives.
However each kind of utilitarianism relates to another as such, the knowledge
of one serves as a base to understanding and knowledge of the other. They
include:
i. Act Utilitarianism
ii. Rule Utilitarianism
iii. Individual Utilitarianism
iv. Social Utilitarianism
v. Egoistic Altruism
1.3.1 ACT-UTILITARIANISM
Act
utilitarianism is one of the major forms of utilitarianism that holds that the
rightness or wrongness of an action should be decided only on the basis of the
consequence(s) of the action. This is to say that the “after-effect” or the
result of an action determines the morality of the action in question. Hence,
those actions that produce good results for the greater numbers of people are
considered good while those actions on the other hand that produce evil result,
pain and unhappiness, are regarded as bad and wrong. More still,
act-utilitarianism claims that an action is right if it achieves maximum
utility for a maximum number hence; the morality of an action is determined,
according to this principle, on the basis of the consequences of the action.
Act-utilitarianism
is concerned or focuses on a particular individual’s action as it appeals to
the individual. Thus, the consequence of an action of an individual becomes the
standard of morality. As such if an action produces the same consequence on a number
of individual the particular action is considered morally good, based on the
aggregate of pain or pleasure achieved. This principle implies thus that
act-utilitarianism does not consider the nature of an action. Instead, it
counts on the effect of such action on the individual: to judge whether an
action is right or wrong, what counts is the result or the consequences of the
action[7]. It means therefore that as long as an action will produce the best
possible results for the greatest number of people that particular action
should be performed and be carried out as a morally good act. In other words,
the end justifies the means.
1.3.2 RULE-UTILITARIANISM
This is
another major form of utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism serves as an
important and intellectual alternative version of utilitarianism, offered by
the utilitarian in response to their critics. The basic strategy of
rule-utilitarian is to limit utilitarian analysis to the evaluation of moral
rules. What this means is that the supposed determinant of a right (moral)
action stems from the question of whether the action is required by the correct
moral rules that everybody should follow. Hence, if an action produces pleasure
when employed the general rule of conduct it is regarded as morally good and
vice versa.
According to
rule-utilitarian, when trying to determine if a particular action is ethical,
one is never supposed to ask whether that particular action will produce the
greatest amount of utility. Instead one is supposed to ask whether the action
is required by the correct moral rules that everyone should follow[8]. The
basic question in this dimension should be what would be the useful consequence
of a moral rule if everybody adopts and obeys it? Or what are the correct moral
rules? It is such questions as the above that should be our concern. Indeed,
the correct moral rules are those rules that would produce the greatest amount
of utility if everyone were to follow them thereby maximizing utility. Simply
put, rule-utilitarianism is concerned with rules as such the right action here
is that which is in consonant with those rules that will maximize utility if
accepted by all.
Meanwhile,
the fact that a certain action would maximize utility on a particular occasion
does not show that the action is good and morally right.[9] Instead, we should
find out a correct moral rule that should evaluate particular actions involved
in the counter-examples in relation to the adopted rules. The moral rules must
be based on the principle of utility. By this point therefore, it is only the
rules which will produce the best possible result for the greatest number of
people if everybody would observe it when adopted, stands out as standard of
distinguishing good actions from bad actions. This theory of
rule-utilitarianism is summarized thus:
a. An action is right from an
ethical point of view if and only if the action would produce maximum utility
when relates to the moral rules that are considered correct.
b. A moral rule is correct if and
only if the sum total of utility produced if everybody were to follow that rule
is greater than the sum total of utilities produced if everybody were to follow
some alternative rule.
Finally,
rule-utilitarianism puts into consideration such question as: would useful
consequent result from everyone adopting and obeying this rule? If the answer
is in the affirmative, then such an act becomes morally good while if on the
contrary, it becomes morally wrong.
1.3.3 INDIVIDUAL UTILITARIANISM
Individual
utilitarianism is another form of utilitarianism otherwise known as Egoistic
Hedonism. The term obviously explains its concept. This form of utilitarianism
claims that the end of each man of which each man ought to seek is his own
greatest personal pleasure. Therefore, whatever action that tends to promote
and increase per se pleasure of each man are to be regarded as morally right
and good while those that produce the reverse of one’s personal pleasure are
morally bad and wrong actions.
This school
of thought agreed also that man’s highest good is human pleasure. Accordingly,
Jeremy Bentham maintained that pleasure is the only good desired by all men
and; pain the only evil which all men seek to avoid. As such pain and pleasure
controls our actions thus:
It is for
them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as to determine what we
shall do. On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other hand
the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their thrones[10]
HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT WORK
PLEASE, print the following
instructions and information if you will like to order/buy our complete written
material(s).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount
(#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project
topics
(2) Email
Address
(3) Payment
Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after
we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 2023350498
Bank: UBA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
AFFILIATE
Comments
Post a Comment