Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course code
Date
Mill’s Utilitarianism Greatest happiness principle being against rights (moral and human rights)
Human rights are universal are inherent. These aspects are essential to always protect human rights from being subject to calculations of general utility. The primary motivation is ensuring that nobody suffers so that others may enjoy the positive results. It is the only way of standing in the way for societies and governments dismissing the desires of minorities in favor of ther whole community. Human rights ought to apply to everyone despite their religious, political, or cultural backgrounds. However, human rights stand vulnerable and challenged by Utilitarianism. Issues emerge when society’s greater good is prioritized at the expense of an individual being restricted to exercise some rights. The complexity of it is also when balancing the benefits of minority rights against society’s interest. (Heard)
Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing the total happiness of everyone at the expense of a few. It does not appeal to individuals’ emotions; instead, it assumes that everyone should feel satisfied if the larger population is happy. Psychology states that individuals’ happiness is personal. Happiness aligns with what an individual desires. There is a distinct difference between apparent and actual happiness; Utilitarianism focuses on the former. An individual experiencing the immense pleasure of the flesh could be masking mental distress; for example, take martyrs; their inner will and desire to do the greater good outweighs the intense physical pain they are going through. (Taranovsky)
Mill’s utilitarianism principle of Greatest Happiness
Mills doctrine of Utilitarianism was written over a century and a half ago, and to date, it is still one of the most effective doctrines in history. Mill’s theory was greatly influenced by his great mentor Jeremy Brantham, a philosopher in Utilitarianism. Mill’s approach is partitioned into five significant sections; however, the focus area, for now, is his chapter on the Greatest Happiness Principle. Technically it argues that the results justify the means.; if a person wanted so badly to do the right thing and ends up doing the wrong something, he should not be blamed even if his actions are immoral. He further claims that very few people can do good deeds extensively, so instead of straining, he urges people to abide by the basic rules of morality, such as do not steal, Do not kill, keep your word. Mill insists that a reasonable person prioritizes everyone’s overall happiness around him; therefore, they should align their interests with the rest of the community.
Mill encourages that living by these basic rules will lead to immense happiness and reduce the opposite of joy. The theory states that happiness brings pleasure and the complete absence of pain; however, the view is quite vague about the degree of pain and pleasure. However, this uncertainty does not influence whatsoever this theory of life where morality is rooted; joy, pain, and freedom are the only desired feelings at the end of everything. (Mill)
Besides, Utilitarianism requires a person to be completely detached and uncommitted to his happiness and be most concerned about others’. Mill uses a well-known Christian religious figure, Jesus Christ, as the perfect example of selflessness; Jesus preached showing unconditional love for one’s neighbor as they would themselves. The doctrine urges the effective systems in the society, such as opinions and education, with immeasurable power to use their effect and instill into everyone’s mind that general good is what matters. It insists that all arrangements made socially and by the law prioritize everyone’s desires to proximal harmony with society. (Mill)
The outstanding balance of greater good over harm
Utilitarianism does not consider what means benefits are acquired, be it murder, torture, lies, among other gross vices. Most people use Utilitarianism to make decisions daily; so long as the course of action provides more benefits for all affected, it becomes the morally right way to go about it. Actuaries, judiciaries, and scientists weigh daily their decisions based on Utilitarianism; they analyze the benefits and harms when deciding where to invest resources, pass or ban a specific law, or approve a new drug. (“Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach To Ethics”)
When making crucial decisions, Utilitarianism offers a relatively uncomplicated way of concluding. First, you weigh all the options you may want to partake, then analyze each action’s results, the benefits, and the harm; finally, you choose the one with the most benefits and less damage.
Utilitarians have different views too of moral conduct. Some believe that when deciding, one ought to look at the bigger picture.” Will the decision made in the situation at hand have more benefits?”If yes, then that is the decision that will be made. If murdering a person, for instance, a terrorist, will bring more good, then murder will be the course of action to be taken. Then there are those whose decisions are based purely on what is socially acceptable. For example, honesty is a socially acceptable virtue, so no matter what the benefits of lying in a particular case might be, telling the truth here is the only way for those with that perception. (“Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach To Ethics“)
misinterpretation of Utilitarianism
Ignorant interpretation of the doctrine may lead to many negative results, which may compromise fundamental human rights. For instance, one may decide to steal money from a rich person and give it to a poor person; the intentions are good, no malicious intent whatsoever; however, there are rights to protect people’s wealth. Another ignorant interpretation is when one thinks it’s okay for billionaires to donate all their wealth to the poorest countries, dismissing the fact that there is another way to enhance education to increase knowledge on generating more wealth. Also, areas with primitiveness may execute a person how committed murder out of self-defense simply because they understand the theory differently. (Taranovsky)
Violation of human rights by Utilitarianism
It has been argued that Utilitarianism is controversial to human rights. Human rights are based on emotions and strong beliefs; they do not emerge from an empty place. They are acquired, and history has repeatedly shown the horrible repercussions of violating human rights. Inconveniently, some restrictions prevent the societies that practice it to change. The significant advantages of torture are not substantial compared to the pain it brings about in a community. Due to the delicate nature of the fundamental right, human rights’ curtailment causes immense danger to society. Utilitarianism does not consider the purpose as to why emotions are essential for the development of human rights. It places these rights on a strong rational rather grounds than emotional basis. The divination for human rights is delicate, and most communities lack them; in America today, state-funded killings exist to the “unneeded ” people in the society; the death penalty is still legal in the United States. Furthermore, wrong instincts are also dangerous as they may create delusional rights such as brutal physical punishments to children by their parents. (Taranovsky)
Another primary issue of Utilitarianism is its consistent refusal to view the legal system. According to Utilitarianism, the welfare of a murderer is equal to England’s prime minister’s well-being. However, this ought not to be the; there should be no equality of treatment for the two. A murderer may be precarious; therefore, should be arrested and confined; the vice should be strongly discouraged in society. (Taranovsky)
Additionally, relatives of murder victims are deeply affected by this act; however, this is only subjective as they are, by default, protective of their loved one. The intention of punishment should be to prevent future evils and to correct the criminal. Retribution is held with high value in most communities as it adjourns evil and can be very impactful. However, the affiliation between protection and prevention is sufficiently precise for most individuals to perceive retribution as a conclusion in itself instead of a path to do good. (Taranovsky)
Conclusion
Utilitarianism has rapidly gained popularity and is being used to make crucial decisions by a lot of people. It quantifies the value of matters and provides a non-complex way to decide; however, it’s not everything that value can be attached to; human life, human dignity, art, among others, are priceless. In some ways, in steps on the toes of human rights; however, it provokes us to analyze each of our actions’ impact. It encourages us to be selfless and consider the consequences of our decisions to everyone affected. In the world we live in today, it is an important reminder that we ought to look beyond ourselves. Some will use this theory to benefit maliciously, so caution is also advisable.
Works cited
“Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach To Ethics.” MARKKULA CENTER FOR APPLIED ETHICS, 2014, https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/
Accessed 1 Aug 2014.
Heard, Andrew. “THE CHALLENGES OF UTILITARIANISM AND RELATIVISM.” Human Rights: Chimeras In Sheep’s Clothing?, 2020, http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/417/util.html. Accessed 6 Dec 2020
.
Taranovsky, Dmytro. Utilitarianism. 2003, http://web.mit.edu/dmytro/www/Utilitarianism.htm. Accessed 6 Dec 2020.