To begin, some questions to reflect: What does determine, according com Stuart Mill an action to be good or bad? What is the criteria to evaluate them? Is the action good because the consequences are good?
As we know, utilitarianism has a theory that says: the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people, which is also called hedonism. According to Mill, actions are just when it brings happiness and unjust when it brings the opposite. Happiness is pleasure without pain, and unhappiness is pain without pleasure. Actions are good when bring happiness.
Overall, Mill's point of view seems really good for us. Who does not want pleasure without pain? For Mill, we should calculate ours consequences in order to get pleasure. From this point, his theory becomes a little bit difficult. Would you do something "moral wrong" in order to bring happiness to you? Would you lie to friend?
Well, according to him. if it brings pleasure for the greatest amount of people you will.
From this idea, don't you think that the Utilitarianism is egoistic? Even though he says: "for the greatest amount of people" but at the same time it seems a theory based on the consequences, and a theory that you would do almost everything to bring happiness to you.
Diego, i agree with your view points on Mill and Utilitarianism. I think throwing in the definition to hedonism was a good point because it does relate to Mill and implies what is just and unjust. When you do just things it will bring happiness with no pain and when you do unjust things it will bring pain without happiness as you stated... So on Mill's concept you want to carry out actions that are good and just.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I think you were spot on about doing something morally wrong to bring happiness to you or even others. For example, would you torture a bomber to save the lives of 50 people. I think you would because it would bring pleasure to the greatest amount of people.
I also agree with what you have said about Utilitarianism. Furthermore, I would like to add that even if these "calculated" decisions we make sometimes involve pain for some, it is still beneficial to the masses (greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people). We should also not forget that even though this system is not perfect, it is definitely better than having no system at all.
ReplyDeleteI think it's easy to agree with Mill when you're the one in the majority recieving the greatest amount of good. However, if you were the few that had to be " sacrificed" for the majority, you probably wouldn't be as quick to agree with Mill. It's hard for me to say I agree fully with any of the philosophers we've studied so far. It makes me wonder how the philosophers themselves could be so one sided. I agree with bits and pieces from every one of them so far.
ReplyDelete