Mills Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Mills Utilitarianism Essay In the beginning of Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill states that throughout history very little progress has been made towards developing a set of moral standards to judge what is morally right or wrong. Although a certain disagreement about such foundations can also be found in the most â€Å"certain† sciences, in those areas truths can still have meaning without understanding the principles underlying them. On the other hand, in philosophy, where all actions exist to proceed towards a particular end, statements unfounded upon a general principle have very little validity. Therefore Mill says that in order to know what morality dictates, it is necessary to know by what standard human actions should be judged. He rejects the idea of a moral instinct inherent in human mind, which supplies us with this ability to judge. Even if such a sense would exist, it wouldn’t show us whether something is right or wrong in a particular matter. Instead, Mill assumes that right and wrong are questions of experience and he tries to show that the principle of utility or â€Å"the greatest happiness principle† is the foundation of this distinction. In Chapter two, Mill tries to reply to some common misconceptions about utilitarianism. He claims that many people mistake utility as the rejection of pleasures, whereas in reality, it is pleasure itself, promoting happiness. He thus defines utilitarianism as the creed which â€Å"holds that actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness†. Accordingly pleasure and absence of pain are the only goals that are inherently good and desirable in themselves. Every other action or experience is only insofar good as it promotes pleasure. However, it is wrong to assume people should only do what makes them personally happy. Instead the standard of judging an act is the happiness of all people. Therefore people shouldn’t distinguish between their own happiness and the happiness of others. The motives underlying a certain act are of no importance in utilitarianism. Instead only the results of our conduct, or more specifically the impact on the general happiness, are to consider. In continuing, Mill states that some pleasures are more valuable than others, so not only the quantity but also the quality of pleasures resulting from a certain act determines its moral rightness. We can experience this difference in quality when we give one pleasure a clear preference over another, although it comes along with a greater amount of discomfort, and would not dismiss it for any quantity of the other pleasure. Mill claims that, given equal access to all kinds of pleasures, every man or woman gives priority to those employing their higher faculties. Appropriately he writes that †it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. Thus only people who have experienced both the higher and the lower pleasures are qualified to judge the quality of a pleasure. But by what extent are pleasures measurable or comparable? And what is it that makes a â€Å"higher† pleasure superior over a â€Å"lower†? Another criticism Mill responds to is that happiness can’t be the goal of human actions, since it’s unattainable. Moreover, detractors of the utilitarian moral state that a life without happiness is quite possible, and all noble beings have become virtuous by renunciation. Mill objects that if happiness is defined as moments of rapture, â€Å"in an existence made up of few and transitory pains† and not as a â€Å"continuity of highly pleasurable excitement† happiness is quite attainable. The only reason why mankind is not yet in this condition of happiness is because our education and our social arrangements are inadequate. Concerning the objection that virtuous men renounced happiness Mill asserts that those noble men acted as martyrs, sacrificing their own happiness in order to increase the happiness of other people. However, such a sacrifice is not in itself an act of good but only insofar as it helps others. Mill presents a couple of other misapprehensions of utilitarian ethics, which he says are obviously wrong but which many people nevertheless believe. First, utilitarianism is often accused to be godless, because its foundation is human happiness, and not the will of god. But if we assume that god desires in the first instance the happiness of his creatures, then utilitarianism is more profoundly religious than any other doctrine. Another objection holds that there is not enough time to outweigh the effects on the general happiness prior to every action taken. Mill replies that such a claim also implies that if our conduct is guided by Christianity we’d have to read the Old and New Testament every time before we act. Obviously this is not possible. Instead he asserts that we had the entire duration of human existence to learn by experience which actions lead to certain results. The last critique Mill responds to is that utilitarianism legitimates immoral tendencies by justifying the break of rules by referring to an increase of utility. He replies that this problem can not only be found in utilitarianism but also in every other creed. Does this argument really dispel misconceptions about utilitarianism? In the beginning of chapter three Mill asserts that every moral philosophy needs some source of obligation in order to be binding. Regarding utilitarianism this binding force consists of internal and external sanctions. External sanctions include â€Å"the hope of favour and the fear of displeasure from our fellow creatures or from the Ruler of the Universe†. Internal sanctions on the other hand, are feelings in our own conscience and create a pain if we violate duty. This second type of sanction is considered to be more powerful. Thus to provide a force which is binding enough to influence people’s conduct, utilitarianism needs to appeal to people’s inner sentiment. Mill claims that in fact every moral sentiment could be cultivated, no matter how bad it is. However such â€Å"artificial† feelings, will eventually crumble when they are analyzed thoroughly. The utilitarian morality on the other hand, emerges as a particularly strong foundation because it’s consistent with the social nature of human sentiments: every one of us has an innate â€Å"desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures†. Mill finally emphasizes that this natural sentiment needs to be nourished through education and law. [ 1 ]. John Stuart, Mill, Utilitarianism, ed. Mary Waldrep (Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc. , 2007), 1. [ 2 ]. Mill, 6. [ 3 ]. Mill, 8. [ 4 ]. Mill, 11. [ 5 ]. Mill, 11. [ 6 ]. Mill, 24. [ 7 ]. Mill, 27.

Socrates Concept Of Justice When Applied To War Philosophy Essay

Socrates Concept Of Justice When Applied To War Philosophy Essay The nation is at war, and your number in the recently reinstated military draft has just come up. The problem is that, after serious reflection, you have concluded that the war is unjust. What advice might Socrates give you? Would you agree? What might you decide to do? One fundamental question answered in the Republic is Socrates concept of Justice. As all the answers, the conclusion about what it is was reached using the dialectical method, a process that is also called, intellectual midwifery. Socrates begins another discussion and a conclusion is reached that it is just to do good to our friends when they are good and harm to our enemies when they are evil, but he does not accept this as the final meaning if justice, and said that doing harm is far worse than receiving harm, because committing injustice harms ones self internally (Davis, 2000). In conclusion, harming any person is an injustice, and so any just man would not commit it. Davis noted that it was the first that it had been declared in European philosophy the idea that a man should not harm others, even his enemies (2000). This is in fact very deontological, as the goodness of an act is considered in itself. In the first book of The Republic, Socrates receives the argument that men find it easier to fall into the pleasures of the unjust rather than choose the inevitable loss and suffering endured as a result of being good and just. But because the just life is more important than the external pleasures that vice and injustice can yield, loss and suffering is a little price to pay. Better is the poor man with a good, just soul than the rich man who has found his wealth through vice and thus attained a tainted soul (Davis, 2000). In addition, his view of justice was exemplified by the famous story, The Ring of Gyges. The point of the story is this: when one has the chance to do something bad, and gain something for ones self, one should not. That is justice. Thus, in this first question, I think that Socrates would have regretted it, because it is not the right thing. We should take note that Socrates is a good warrior himself of Athens, while being its greatest philosopher at the same time. While the end could be good, the point is it was attained in the wrong manner. In his line of thought, Socrates would have advised that there should be some form of repayment to the commitment of injustice. And yes, I would agree. The essence of justice, as was expounded by Davis is not gaining something good for ones self by making other people suffer. Would it have been unjust for Socrates to escape? If you think it would have been, explain your position on whether it is ever morally appropriate to disobey the law. If you think Socrates could have escaped without committing an injustice, explain why. Is there some argument Crito could have made but didnt? Habin noted three arguments of Crito as he was convincing Socrates to escape. First, Socrates friends reputations would have suffered; because it would only mean that his friends do not have the courage to help him escape. Their reputations would suffer. Second, Socrates would not be able to provide for his children in prison. And third, if he does not flee, it would become impossible for Socrates to teach philosophy, which means success for his enemies (2003). Socrates responded, however, that, A good man cannot be harmed eitherin life or in death, and in addition, and in relation to his concept of justice, one not ought to harm ones friends. It must be cleared that harming a person, for Socrates meant means him less good, less. Lastly, in response to Critos argument related about his children, the philosophers reply was, if escaping is unjust and he does it, then he would show himself unfit as teacher of virtue-he would have shown that he did not know what virtue is-and so he could not make his children just or virtuous (2003). Following the line of thought that Socrates notion of justice is justice in itself, the one characterized by Gyges, wherein one should commit something beneficial for ones self without hurting people, it would be injustice if ever he tried to escape. In the first place, Socrates was condemned to drink hemlock because he was accused of youth corruption and in believing other Gods. Thus, while this he is receiver of injustice himself, it would have been greater injustice to try to escape, because he would simply commit greater injustice. One argument Crito could have made is that the Athenian laws are base or morally incorrect, and so he could have convinced Socrates to escape because it would not be injustice as it is a rebellion against the laws themselves. This is different from disobeying the laws as they are laws, and disobeying the laws because they are in itself wrong. Are your moral judgments merely expressions of your personal preferences? If not, how are they different? In articulating your position, be sure to explain how it compares to Reagans. Moral judgment is not only expressions of personal preferences. In the line of thought of the philosopher Levinas, this question itself is invalid, because there can be no personal when it comes to morality in the sense that morality is only possible between two people. Morality is not a question of acts (acts could be personal). Moral preferences could not, as they are always based on a person to person relation. To be moral means to acknowledge others preferences as well. To be moral is an acknowledgment that people are people and deserve to have a life. Thus, to cancel this right is a transgression. I thus agree with Reagans position that there must not be individual preferences when it comes to moral judgments. In one newspaper article I have read about Reagan, he was said to be mistaken in judgment simply because he deems that a baby born without brain should not be starved to death. This is in fact very humane, because while the child would have not survived even a week, Reagans decision is just an acknowledgment of the right of the infant. Is it possible to be moral without believing in God? Why or why not? It is possible to be moral without believing in God, if this idea of God is based on tradition (i.e. Jesus, Allah, Jehovah.) For although religion is a great foundation when it comes to morality, it does not mean that religion is the sole foundation of it. For instance, there are a claim in the Philosophy of Science that science is not only taking-over explanations on metaphysics (I mean, reality,) and knowledge, but science is also taking over epistemology, and now even aesthetics and ethics. For example, there is what is called bio-ethics. Question about the possibility of being moral without God is actually outdated, for Nietzsche had long ago pronounced the death of God.-the death of objectivity, as new demi-gods arises: perhaps the result is this age of post-modernism. Aside from Nietzsche, there are other ethical philosophers who have founded a system of morals without relying on the idea of a god: there is utilitarianism, pragmatism, hedonism, rational egoism, and a lot more.

Young Goodman Brown :: Free Essay Writer

'Young Goodman Brown'; was an interesting story because of its setting, characters, and plot. The story was set in the late Puritan Era when people were scared of the woods due to the mysterious witches and savage Indians. Puritans really liked true colors such as white and red. If white was worn it meant pure but if red was worn it meant evil. As Puritans, an individual had to have pure thoughts, and sex was only thought of to procreate if married.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Young Goodman Brown, Faith, fellow traveler, and the townspeople are the characters in 'Young Goodman Brown.'; Young Goodman Brown means an inexperienced good standing citizen with an ordinary last name. All he wanted was to advance in his social and religion status. His wife, Faith, is a sweet girl who wants her husband to stay home all the time. She wore pink ribbons in her hair, which in the Puritan Era pink resembled pollution. Pink is a mixture of white and red which was not a true color. Today in society pink means innocence, which is ironic from the Puritan way. The fellow traveler could have been either Young Goodman Brown's own personal devil or his father. The townspeople were church going people yet in the end they contradicted their own values and beliefs.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The plot of 'Young Goodman Brown'; had a lot of twists and turns. The story started out with Young Goodman Brown needing to go to an important meeting and to get hoping to raise his religion and social status. He took a simple journey in the forest and it turned into a complicated ending. He met up with a traveler who was waiting for him in the woods. They were walking on a narrow path but it was hard to stay on because of the distraction and they ended up on a wide path. In the Bible it says 'a narrow path leads to heaven, and a wide path leads to hell.'; This was not a simple journey for Young Goodman Brown as a young man because he must have pure thoughts about anything. Strange things began to happen on his journey.

Innovative Waste Disposal :: essays research papers fc

As humanity develops new technology, the magnitude and severity of waste increases. When computers were developed, it widely was believed that the need for paper would be eliminated. On the contrary this was widely proven false and we are now utilizing more paper than ever. Canada is not an exception as the typical Canadian generates an average of three pounds of solid waste each day1. This alone shows what a careless species we have become- using and disposing materials without even considering the damage we are causing. With half a trillion tones of waste around the world, only 25% may be reused for a second or third time and less than 5% can be renewed limitlessly1. These facts are true only in developed countries. Since these traditional waste reduction methods have been proven inefficient, we must endorse new innovative technology to arrive at a solution. Traditional methods of waste disposal have proven to be ineffective and have caused harmful effects on the environment. The most popular and inexpensive way to get rid of garbage is burial, but burying your problems does not necessarily mean getting rid of them. Landfill sites pose as severe ecological threats as these mass garbage dump yards overflow with trash and frequently contaminate our air, soil and water with hazardous wastes. About 400 million tons of hazardous wastes are generated each year1. A large-scale release of these materials can cause thousands of deaths and may poison the environment for many years. For example many industrial companies around the world cannot afford to enforce the strict pollution regulations set by many developed countries. This usually forces these types of companies to move to developing countries where pollution regulations are very lenient. These developing countries knowingly accept environmentally hazardous companies usually because they ar e in desperate need of employment. The harmful effects of these companies were clearly illustrated in the 1960s and 1970s when residents living near Minamata Bay, Japan, developed nervous disorders, tremors, and paralysis in a mysterious epidemic. The root was later found to be a local industry that had released mercury, a highly toxic element, into Minamata Bay. The disaster had claimed the lives of 400 people1. Since 1970 you can bet that a lot more than 400 people have died as a result of waste disposal. If the type of waste disposal were cheaper and effective we wouldn’t have to deal with waste problems, which still plague mankind today.

Katherine Ann Porters The Jilting of Granny Weatherall :: The Jilting of Granny Weatherall

Katherine Ann Porter's The Jilting of Granny Weatherall â€Å"The Jilting of Granny Weatherall,† a short story by Katherine Anne Porter, describes the last thoughts, feelings, and memories of an elderly woman. As Granny Weatherall’s life literally â€Å"flashes† before her eyes, the importance of the title of the story becomes obvious. Granny Weatherall has been in some way deceived or disappointed in every love relationship of her life. Her past lover George, husband John, daughter Cornelia, and God each did an injustice to Granny Weatherall. Granny faces her last moments of life with a mixture of strength, bitterness, and fear. Granny gained her strength from the people that she felt jilted by. George stood Granny up at the altar and it is never stated that she heard from him again. The pain forced Granny to be strong. In "The Jilting of Granny Weatherall," there are two themes. The first is self-pity. The second theme is the acceptance of her death. Both deal with the way people perceive their deaths and mortality in general. Granny Weatherall's behavior is Porter's tool for making these themes visible to the reader. The theme of self-pity is obvious and thoroughly explored early on. As a young lady, Granny Weatherall was left at the altar on her wedding day. As a result, the pathetic woman feels sorry for herself for the rest of her life. She becomes a bitter old woman who is suspicious of everyone around her. This point is shown early in the story when the do Granny Weatherall, the main character in Katherine Anne Porter's The Jilting of Granny Weatherall, is an 80-year-old elderly woman who is at the doorstep of death. There is a sense of disillusionment with Granny that leads readers to develop their own interpretation of her relationship with Cornelia, her daughter As the narrator, Granny unk nowingly would paint the picture of Cornelia as nuisance and bothersome. In fact, the reader can rationalize that it is just Cornelia's concern for an ailing mother that creates the situation of her seemingly being there all the time. Granny is having mental flashbacks as death approaches like "a fog rose over the valley" (1296). Granny recalls events throughout her life, from being left at the altar on her wedding day, to losing a child, to coming to grips with her own death as the story reaches a close. All of these recollections and the realization of her death bring together the great ironies of the story, ironies which cause not one but two jiltings for Granny.

“Perfection Wasted” by John Updike Essay

Legend Ends or Perfection Wasted? Each person brings a special quality and gift to life that creates an individualistic style to the world that we live in. The poem Perfection Wasted was written by John Updike in the year 1990; this poem accentuates the flair that can never be replaced when a loved one dies. One way to better understand a poem is to paraphrase it into your own words. Paraphrase of Perfection Wasted: One thing that is unfortunate about departing this life is the lost vivacity that a person works to expand since the day they were born. The closest relationships surrounding the person enjoy the up close and personal events in the stage of life. They are there through the good times and the bad while having utmost concern for you. The many special moments that were spent together, will never be relived again in the same capacity. Though they can try to be like you, they will never fully succeed due to individual quality you brought to life. â€Å"Imitators and descendan ts aren’t the same† The theme of this poem is death and what factors play into what is lost when a person dies. The setting of the poem is philosophical in thinking about qualities that someone special carries in retrospect to life. I found no similes in the poem. Perfection Wasted is a metaphorical in the idea that is parallel to the idea that life is a stage and we are the players. Updike uses a lot of abstract and theoretical imagery as well as minimal visual imagery. One example of visual imagery includes the descriptions of the stage and the description of the faces he sees in the audience. An example of kinetic imagery is the â€Å"laughter† which leads the audience members to cry. The imagery is vivid and serves the purpose of swaying the view of the reader into an emotional state. The poem contains a medium to high level of diction that contains little slang while using one contraction in the last line that is the word â€Å"aren’t†. The words are not overly elaborate and maintain a descriptive role in the poem; the level of diction did not reveal what region the n arrator originates. I chose to compare the poem Perfection Wasted to the recent passing of my legendary hero Dale Earnhardt. He was an amazing driver who lived his world on a stage in the public eye. I had the opportunity to meet Dale several times throughout the years and he did have that special sparkle when I met him in person. Others can drive a car, but no one can replace Dale or his style. His son continues to drive one of the Earnhardt cars, but as Updike says, â€Å"imitators and descendants aren’t the same†. I know I will not be. I enjoyed  reading Updike’s poem Perfection Wasted as well as his earlier work named â€Å"A&P†. He has a unique writing style that brings the reader to an emotional and empathetic state in relating to his characters. We can all relate to the situations that he puts his characters, along with their thoughts and actions. Death might bring the end to the magic of one lifetime, or the end of a legend. Regardless of the conclusion, perfection was not wasted. It was shared among the people whose lives were touched by that person’s gift.

The Corner and Good Job Opportunities

Looking Out for Yourself It's sad but true that â€Å"If you don't look out for yourself, no one else will. † For example, some people have a false idea about the power of a college degree, they think that once they possesses the degree, the world will be waiting on their doorstep. In fact, nobody is likely to be on their doorstep unless, through advance planning, they has prepared themselves for a career. The kind in which good job opportunities exist. Even after a person has landed a job, owever, a healthy amount of self-interest is needed. People who hide in corners or with hesitation to let others know about their skills doesn't get promotions or raises. Its important to take credit for a job well-done, whether it involves writing a report, organized the office filing system, or calming down an angry customer. Also, people should feel free to ask the boss for a raise. If they work hard and really deserve it. Those who look out for themselves get the ewards, people who depe nd on others to help them along get left behind. Why I Didn't Go to Church I almost never attended church in my boyhood years. There was an unwritten code that the guys on the corner was not to be seen in churches'. Although there was many days when I wanted to attend a church, I felt I had no choice but to stay away. If the guys had heard I had gone to church, they would have said things like, â€Å"hey, angel, when are you going to fly? With y group of friends, its amazing that I developed any religious feeling at all. Another reason for not going to church was my father. When he was around the house he told my mother, â€Å"Mike's not going to church. No boy of mine is a sissy. † My mother and sister went to church, I sat with my father and read the Sunday paper or watching television. I did not start going to church until years later. bnWhen I no longer hung around with the guys on the corner or let my father have power over me.