Pagesplease Address The Following Two Questions Is Mill Righ

1 2 Pagesplease Address The Following Two Questionsis Mill Right Wh

Please address the following two questions: Is Mill right when he says that goodness is simply "whatever promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people"? In your answer, consider Mill's distinction between "higher and lower pleasures" in contrast to Bentham's "moral arithmetic." Consider, also, the various objections to utilitarianism as discussed in the lecture.

How useful is the ethical theory we have studied so far when it comes to concrete problems and issues in the "real world"? Consider some real-world issues, e.g., abortion, euthanasia, world hunger, etc. See the reading/viewing assignments, and note that you have the option of viewing any of 16 video programs in the award-winning "Ethics in America" series.

Discuss a few of the positions pro and con that you've read, and then tell how you think such philosophers as Aristotle, Kant, and Mill would deal with the issues. Since most ethical controversies are subtle and complex, it is not likely that any of the philosophers we've studied would be completely "for" or completely "against" any of the positions discussed.

Paper For Above instruction

Utilitarianism, initially developed by Jeremy Bentham and later refined by John Stuart Mill, remains one of the most influential ethical theories in the realm of moral philosophy. Mill’s assertion that "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" defines goodness is both compelling and controversial. A critical evaluation of Mill’s perspective reveals nuances that differentiate his stance from Bentham's original formulation and highlights significant debates within utilitarian thought.

Mill’s Distinction Between Higher and Lower Pleasures

Mill diverges from Bentham's "quantitative" approach by emphasizing the quality of pleasures rather than merely their quantity. Bentham believed that all pleasures could be summed and compared morally using “moral arithmetic," where each pleasure is equally comparable regardless of its nature. Mill, however, argued that certain pleasures—those of the intellect, moral feelings, and aesthetic appreciation—are qualitatively superior to physical or base pleasures. This distinction aims to address objections that utilitarianism reduces value purely to pleasure and pain, disregarding the richness of human experience.

For instance, Mill contended that the pleasures of reading, the arts, and philosophical inquiry offer deeper satisfaction than mere physical gratifications. This qualitative view seeks to preserve human dignity and higher pursuits, making Mill’s version of utilitarianism more nuanced but also more difficult to quantify or calculate than Bentham’s approach.

Objections to Utilitarianism

Despite its intuitive appeal, utilitarianism faces several objections, particularly concerning its application to complex moral dilemmas. Critics argue that utilitarianism can justify morally questionable actions if they result in a net increase in happiness (e.g., sacrificing one innocent individual for the greater good), raising concerns about justice and individual rights.

Furthermore, the theory assumes that happiness or pleasure can be reliably measured and compared across individuals, which is problematic given subjective experiences. Another critique pertains to the demanding nature of utilitarian morality; it can require individuals to always act in ways that maximize overall happiness, often at personal or minority expense—an unrealistic and socially problematic expectation.

Utility in Addressing Real-World Issues

In practical terms, utilitarianism offers valuable guidance in policy-making and ethical decision-making, especially when allocating resources or weighing competing interests. For example, in addressing world hunger, utilitarian principles would advocate for policies that maximize the overall well-being, such as efficient distribution of food and aid. Similarly, debates around euthanasia or abortion involve weighing the overall happiness, suffering, and rights of individuals affected.

However, utilitarianism often struggles with issues where individual rights conflict with aggregate happiness. For instance, the debate over euthanasia raises questions about autonomy and dignity versus the perceived societal benefits or harms. In cases of abortion, utilitarian reasoning must consider the well-being of the mother, the fetus, and society, often leading to nuanced, context-dependent conclusions.

Philosophical Perspectives on Real-World Ethical Issues

Philosophers like Aristotle, Kant, and Mill would approach these dilemmas differently. Aristotle’s virtue ethics emphasizes character development and living in accordance with virtue to achieve eudaimonia (flourishing). He might argue that moral decisions should foster personal virtues and societal harmony, focusing less on outcomes and more on moral character and intentions. For example, in euthanasia, Aristotle might evaluate whether the action aligns with virtues like compassion and justice, emphasizing moderation and moral wisdom.

>Mill, with his utilitarian perspective, would assess these issues based on their consequences for overall happiness. He might endorse euthanasia in cases where it alleviates unbearable suffering, provided it maximizes well-being, but would also consider higher pleasures and the importance of intentions and societal impacts.

Conclusion

The ethical theories studied—utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Kantian deontology—offer contrasting but valuable frameworks for addressing complex moral issues. Mill’s enhancement of utilitarianism with a focus on higher pleasures attempts to solve some of the theory’s earlier shortcomings, such as the reduction of morality to pleasure maximization. Nonetheless, its challenges—such as justice concerns and measurement problems—limit its pragmatic application. An integrated approach that considers virtues, duties, and outcomes may provide a more balanced ethical guide in confronting real-world dilemmas like euthanasia, abortion, and global hunger.

References

• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press.
• Aristotle. ( circa 350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by M. Gregor.
• Foot, P. (2002). Virtues and Vices. Oxford University Press.
• Stevenson, H. (1937). Ethical emotivism and the language of morality. Mind, 46(184), 1-18.
• Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, Truth and Logic. Gollancz.
• Shaw, W. H. (2016). Moral Issues in Business. Cengage Learning.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). Philosophy: The Classics. McGraw-Hill Education.