Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
Personal usefulness or utility is not required to clash with public usefulness. Usefulness or Utility is often misguided for pragmatism. but, pragmatism is the affinity to encourage certain preferred objective, regardless of the consideration between what is correct and reasonable. Utility is the standard level of being practical, and hence it must take into account not just what would generate a preferred objective, but what would encourage the maximum pleasure, and what is appropriate and reasonable. Mill acknowledges that the theory can be distorted. But he states that, in the event of discord between personal utility and public usefulness, the decisive factor of utility can continued to be used to arrive at a conclusion. (Ryan, 38)
What is the intention to abide by the theory of utility? According to Mill people long for their individual pleasure, no matter the degree of distortion in their own behavior; they wish and emphasize behavior in others that encourages their individual pleasure. External prizes and reprimand also play a role in encouraging or averting a person's pleasure. The principle of utilitarianism states that pleasure is enviable. Pleasure is ideal for every individual. Utilitarianism never refuses that people wish virtue, or that virtue is to be longed for. Just the opposite is correct: utilitarianism insists that virtue is to be wished. Virtue can be a constituent of pleasure. Therefore, anything, which is wished as a way to certain purpose afar itself, is wished since it encourages pleasure. (Lyons, 114)
In what way is usefulness or utility linked to righteousness? Righteousness comprises as regards for the lawful or ethical privileges of every individual. Inequality comprises in the infringement of the legal or ethical privileges of anybody. Righteousness in its essence is unbiased and equitable. Righteousness means not just what is correct and incorrect, rather what every person can demand from other person as an ethical privilege. The idea of righteousness puts into effect a policy of behavior, and makes laws for penal provisions against infringement of this regulation of behavior. Whereas the behavior of every person should be reasonable, reprimand for infringements of the law of conduct must also be reasonable. As per Mill, the righteousness that stems from utility and it is the most vital constituent of ethics. Righteousness is more significant social usefulness compared to any added theory of ethics. Therefore, righteousness does not turn out to be falling short of precedence for the cause of certain other ethical belief. An added ethical belief might have to happen to have decreased precedence for the cause of impartiality. (Viner, 87) drawback of Mill's utilitarian hypothesis might be that it does not accord sufficient value to the clash between personal and public usefulness. Personal usefulness can be erroneously taken as public usefulness. Although the theory of increased pleasure is satisfied by the pleasure of all people, this does not imply that every person who works towards attainment of pleasure will work for the pleasure of every person. Utilitarian hypothesis might be misapprehended to defend the supremacy of a particular type of usefulness over another one, personal over public, or the reverse. An added limitation of utilitarian hypothesis might be that ethical actions are weighed up totally as a measure of their outcomes, and not as a measure of their enthusiasm. The enthusiasm for ethics is observed as the quest for pleasure and not as a measure of more intricate enthusiasm. Utilitarian principle might be a type of consequential thinking, in that ethical acts are viewed as appropriate or mistaken in their own right. A conjecture might embody a perspective that visualizes pleasure as the most significant constituent of ethics. (August, 92)
According to this theory, life is seen as a primarily comprised of quest for happiness, or the prevention of agony. A more complete expression for what individuals struggle for may be "fulfillment," or certain other expression which will appreciate that humans have intuitions, wants, wishes, ambitions, and other objectives, that they hunt for satisfying. Despite the limitations, Mill's Utilitarian principle is notable due to its assertion of democratic principles; the most vital theory of social utility is equity for every individuals. Eventually, Mill is triumphant in that he refers that as opposed to popular belief, utilitarianism is never an egocentric inspiration that does not take into account the wishes of others. Mill has efficiently substantiated his viewpoint by observing that pleasure is never a comprehensive expression. It is made up of a lot of elements and conveys varied ideals to varied individuals. It is whether a man is committed to be a billionaire, renowned, or leading a pure and a hale and hearty life, he is all the while striving and finding out ways for the same objective, which is happiness and liberty from agony. (Lively; Rees, 44)
To conclude, Mill assumed that a society that favored liberty of freedom to people was the perfect one, as it inspired men with a drive as well as those happy with the current state of affairs they inescapably continue living, regardless of what the characteristics of a particular society is, to attain their intensity of pleasure.
August, Eugene. John Stuart Mill: A Mind at Large. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1975.
Collini, S.J.S. Mill: On Liberty and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press: New York, 1989
Halliday, R.J. John Stuart Mill. London: Allen & Unwin, Ltd. 1976.
Laine, Michael. A Cultivated Mind: Essays on J.S. Mill. University of Toronto Press, 1991
Lively, J; Rees, J.C. Utilitarian Logic and Politics. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 1978.
Lyons, David. Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Ryan, Alan. John Stuart Mill. London: Routledge, Kegan and Paul. 1974.
Spitz, David, ed. On Liberty. New York W.W. Norton, and Co., 1975.
Urmson, J.O. The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J.S. Mill. Philosophical Quarterly. Volume: 3; No: 1; 1953; pp: 33-39
Viner, Jacob. Bentham and J.S. Mill: The Utilitarian Background, in Douglas a. Irwin (ed.) Essays on the Intellectual History of Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1991.
Zimmer, L.B.J.S. Mill and Bentham on…[continue]
"John Stuart Mill The 19th" (2004, October 13) Retrieved October 28, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/john-stuart-mill-the-19th-57308
"John Stuart Mill The 19th" 13 October 2004. Web.28 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/john-stuart-mill-the-19th-57308>
"John Stuart Mill The 19th", 13 October 2004, Accessed.28 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/john-stuart-mill-the-19th-57308
Moreover, how does he justify saying one would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool who is satisfied? His point is obvious - it is better to have brains and not achieve happiness than be dumb and be contented. But Socrates, brilliant as he was, chose death over exile from Athens, which it can be argued did not lead to happiness in Socrates nor in the students who admired
Unfortunately, we have had no more success at finding that limit than Mill did, for what we see all around us today is that very same "political despotism" of which Mill speaks with trepidation. Mill writes that it is the "majority" who makes "the ways of mankind" (102-3), but his notion of "majority rule" appears to be based on the assumption that political despotism has not been enshrined. Majority rule
John Stuart Mill on Liberty In John Stuart Mill's brilliant 19th Century essay "On Liberty" he states that "the worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it." What Mills is purporting in that statement is that the State (the government) must not impede on the natural development of individual liberty. We are never to forget that we have inalienable rights for life and
The servant is deemed 'other' by society, of an entirely different class than the mistress. The servant seems grateful simply to simply be employed to an individual of high-born status. The 'otherness' between the two women is so great, the servant does not even seem to perceive herself as part of the same substance as the lady. She has no jealousy of the fact that the lady does not
Thus, due to women's continued dependence on men in order to survive in society, women inadvertently helped create the thinking that they cannot survive and live within their own means, not without the help of society, most particularly, men. Mill's discussion of male-female relations may be blatantly honest in acknowledging women oppression, but his arguments were strong in that he was able to specifically determine the factor which made
Mill talked of ethical freedom in terms of all areas wherein individual and society interacts and become involved with each other; Marx utilized the same viewpoint, although specified it in terms of proletarian-bourgeoisie relations. For Marx, ethical freedom is self-realization within the individual, and primary in this realization was the acknowledgment that one needs to be economically independent in order for modern individuals, and society in general, to function progressively.
For him, it is also important to know that liberty, while dependent on the individual's decision alone, should also take into account the consequences that will come out upon the accomplishment of an action. That is, it is vital that the individual think of the 'bigger picture': will the action benefit the common good, or will it benefit my personal interests only? Positive liberty, hence, becomes more vital when