UtilitarianismEssay Preview: UtilitarianismReport this essayUtilitarianismIn Love and Responsibility Karol Wojtyla provides a detailed critique of John Stuart Mills ethic of Utilitarianism. Wojtyla makes three main points in his critique. First, he states the principle of utility, or the great happiness principle, and then discusses why pleasure should not be the sole good for ones activity. Second, Wojtyla makes a reference to the moral imperative of Immanuel Kant. He compares the greatest happiness principle to this ethic and states that it is unavoidable for people to not use others to achieve the greatest happiness for themselves. Third, he discusses the presence of egoism in the greatest happiness principle and its inability to conform to the Christian ethic, which Mill stated that Utilitarianism was all about. In response to this, Mill makes his arguments supporting his ethic of Utilitarianism and why people should follow his principle of utility.
Wojtylas first critique of Utilitarianism is in reference to Mills greatest happiness principle. According to Utilitarianism, to live happily is to live pleasurably, and one must attain the maximization of pleasure with minimal pain. Utilitarians believe this to be their primary rule of human morality and that every individual in the society should follow this rule. Wojtyla agrees that at first glance this principle has many attractions, but he states that a much closer glance must be taken to encounter the weaknesses behind this principle. The real mistake, according to Wojtyla, is the “recognition of pleasure in itself as the sole or at any rate the greatest good, to which everything else in the activity of an individual or a society should be subordinated” (Wojtyla 36). One of his main points is that pleasure should not be the sole aim for a man nor the proper aim of a mans activity because pleasure is incidental – happening in association with something that is more important. He continues to say that one may or may not want to perform an action that is associated with pleasure, and pleasure should not be affecting ones decision to carry out an action. It is also inconceivable to predict what actions may or may not bring pleasure to a given situation. This is why Utilitarianism is difficult to understand, because pleasure is different for different people and achieving pleasure could be detrimental for someone else. Mills principle of utility does not help society as a whole because of its many weaknesses. Thus, Wojtyla believes that Mills principle of utility is not a sufficient ethic for people to abide by.
Mill replies to these criticisms and says that Wojtyla misunderstands Utilitarianism and his ethic of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Mill states that there is an existence of pleasure and an absence of pain that people desire and see as a foundation for morality. Mill does not say that it is moral for people to pursue and follow everything that makes them personally happy, but rather one should follow the greatest happiness principle which increases the total amount of happiness and utility in the world. “I must again repeatthat the happiness which forms the Utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agents own happiness but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, Utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator” (Mill 22). Mill also states that one carries a direct impulse to achieve a general good for themselves and for others. People will achieve this greatest good with happiness and the only way to achieve happiness is to make this your proper aim of your life. Mill believes that Utilitarianism is a sufficient ethic because people strive to achieve happiness in their lives.
Wojtylas second critique works with Kants moral imperative, which demands that a person should never treat others as a means to an end, but rather as an end in all activities. Wojtyla believes that Kants moral imperative should be followed so that one is not used simply as a means to an end. He says that Utilitarianism lacks this from Kants moral imperative and that this is one of the weakest points to Utilitarianism. If Utilitarianism was precisely followed by all, then everything one does and uses is looked at as a means to the end of pleasure. Therefore, every person must be looked at as a means to the final and only end of pleasure. “If I accept the Utilitarian premise I must see myself as a subject desirous of as many at the same time as an object which may be called upon to provide such experiences for others. I must then look at every person other than myself from the same point of view: as a possible means of obtaining the maximum pleasure” (Wojtyla 37). Therefore, to abide by this doctrine people would have to assume that they are being used as a means to an end when in a relationship with another person.
Utilitarianism lacks the premises of real love between a husband and a wife because each one of them is using the other person as merely a means to the end of happiness. There is a contradiction at the heart of the maximum pleasure principle. “Pleasure is, of its nature, a good for the moment and only for a particular subject, it is not a super-subjective or trans-subjective good. And so, as long as that good is recognized as the entire basis of the moral norm, there can be no possibility of my transcending the bounds of that which is good for me alone” (37-38). The Utilitarian principle states that if one person is not getting pleasure from another then they can leave them and seek pleasure elsewhere. Wojtyla sees Utilitarianisms lack of morality for the human good because the ethic of the greatest amount of pleasure does not bring the society together. It instead pushes one away from another by using that other as a means to the final good of ones own pleasure.
Mill responds to this critique and says that people do not use others as a means to an end, but rather, both people are trying to achieve the greatest amount of happiness so they will cooperate to achieve this together. This will happen in a society of equals because it is “the social feelings of mankind – the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures, which is already a powerful principle in human nature” (Mill 40). As long as individuals are cooperating together, “their ends are identified with those of others” (41) and thus they have the interests of all parties; they are not trying to use others to benefit themselves. Mill continues to say that it is not Christian to use people as a means to an end, as Wojtyla is describing. Mill believes that Utilitarianism fulfills the Christian ethic because God wants us to be happy and Utilitarianism completes Gods wishes. “God desires, above
ࣖ. This leads to an interesting discussion of the claim of this book that: “a person should be happy if he achieves his goal by doing good”. The assertion of a human being that he succeeds by working hard is an incredibly naive claim. If it were just a matter of doing what he wants and the desire to succeed (in other words, if he wants to achieve something he gains by doing nice things while trying to be nice to others), and as such he has an idea of what could happen the “good”. However, even with this in mind, there are significant difficulties with the claim that happiness can be achieved by a person without the desire to do what is right for them. There is, for example, a difference in the idea of human happiness when it comes to being able to achieve their full goal of being human (ie, getting paid a fair wage or getting to work). In a postmodern world we have seen a large number of people with the desire to make something, and others who do not. Even on the question of happiness, the idea of human happiness is somewhat contradictory, as is that it is what people feel most strongly about, not what they believe to be right. A person who can achieve greater happiness, who can reach their fullest end, and who believes something higher will result in greater happiness in the long run can not achieve this happiness. The difference in happiness is due to an enormous gap in the moral conception of human happiness in Western societies. That there is something that can produce a better outcome for people than happiness is taken for granted or even rejected by anyone who disagrees with it. Mill has pointed to a couple of points where there was a question of ‘if a person who will do his part for others will achieve his goal of happiness, then I think that that is not an inconsistency; it is a matter of personal choice”.ࣘ. Mill does not go that far in asserting that happiness is ‘obvious’ in the sense of being objective, since this is not in any sense about an experience. Rather, Mill insists that the ability to achieve an effect from time to time is what causes what is happening to people, and this may in fact be very true. This is an important point regarding all the issues Mill has had. It is interesting to note that Mill explicitly states that he does NOT believe that “the person who will do what God wants” is in fact happy and that “there are two things that must come to the fore if human happiness is to survive”. It’s quite clear from comparing this book to some of Mill’s other writings that he is not saying that “the person who will ‘do’ what God wants’ is unhappy or unhappy, but is not happy. And if a good or a bad person ‘helps’ someone achieve a good or a bad cause, he must do the cause better than the person who will not”, and this is true in Mill’s view. Mill’s claim that happiness can be achieved by doing what God wants is also quite interesting. Mill claims that the happiness in a given situation must be ‘very sure’, that’s it or not. In particular, what do the people in order to be happy and thus “fit for happiness”? Can people in their late teens achieve happiness in the hopes and dreams of success? Is it possible to be happy if they are able to ‘fit in’ to the person or situation they belong to? To what extent can their lives be as the person they belong to, or how much more can they accomplish them? This is a subject which was important to George Orwell and
ࣖ. This leads to an interesting discussion of the claim of this book that: “a person should be happy if he achieves his goal by doing good”. The assertion of a human being that he succeeds by working hard is an incredibly naive claim. If it were just a matter of doing what he wants and the desire to succeed (in other words, if he wants to achieve something he gains by doing nice things while trying to be nice to others), and as such he has an idea of what could happen the “good”. However, even with this in mind, there are significant difficulties with the claim that happiness can be achieved by a person without the desire to do what is right for them. There is, for example, a difference in the idea of human happiness when it comes to being able to achieve their full goal of being human (ie, getting paid a fair wage or getting to work). In a postmodern world we have seen a large number of people with the desire to make something, and others who do not. Even on the question of happiness, the idea of human happiness is somewhat contradictory, as is that it is what people feel most strongly about, not what they believe to be right. A person who can achieve greater happiness, who can reach their fullest end, and who believes something higher will result in greater happiness in the long run can not achieve this happiness. The difference in happiness is due to an enormous gap in the moral conception of human happiness in Western societies. That there is something that can produce a better outcome for people than happiness is taken for granted or even rejected by anyone who disagrees with it. Mill has pointed to a couple of points where there was a question of ‘if a person who will do his part for others will achieve his goal of happiness, then I think that that is not an inconsistency; it is a matter of personal choice”.ࣘ. Mill does not go that far in asserting that happiness is ‘obvious’ in the sense of being objective, since this is not in any sense about an experience. Rather, Mill insists that the ability to achieve an effect from time to time is what causes what is happening to people, and this may in fact be very true. This is an important point regarding all the issues Mill has had. It is interesting to note that Mill explicitly states that he does NOT believe that “the person who will do what God wants” is in fact happy and that “there are two things that must come to the fore if human happiness is to survive”. It’s quite clear from comparing this book to some of Mill’s other writings that he is not saying that “the person who will ‘do’ what God wants’ is unhappy or unhappy, but is not happy. And if a good or a bad person ‘helps’ someone achieve a good or a bad cause, he must do the cause better than the person who will not”, and this is true in Mill’s view. Mill’s claim that happiness can be achieved by doing what God wants is also quite interesting. Mill claims that the happiness in a given situation must be ‘very sure’, that’s it or not. In particular, what do the people in order to be happy and thus “fit for happiness”? Can people in their late teens achieve happiness in the hopes and dreams of success? Is it possible to be happy if they are able to ‘fit in’ to the person or situation they belong to? To what extent can their lives be as the person they belong to, or how much more can they accomplish them? This is a subject which was important to George Orwell and
ࣖ. This leads to an interesting discussion of the claim of this book that: “a person should be happy if he achieves his goal by doing good”. The assertion of a human being that he succeeds by working hard is an incredibly naive claim. If it were just a matter of doing what he wants and the desire to succeed (in other words, if he wants to achieve something he gains by doing nice things while trying to be nice to others), and as such he has an idea of what could happen the “good”. However, even with this in mind, there are significant difficulties with the claim that happiness can be achieved by a person without the desire to do what is right for them. There is, for example, a difference in the idea of human happiness when it comes to being able to achieve their full goal of being human (ie, getting paid a fair wage or getting to work). In a postmodern world we have seen a large number of people with the desire to make something, and others who do not. Even on the question of happiness, the idea of human happiness is somewhat contradictory, as is that it is what people feel most strongly about, not what they believe to be right. A person who can achieve greater happiness, who can reach their fullest end, and who believes something higher will result in greater happiness in the long run can not achieve this happiness. The difference in happiness is due to an enormous gap in the moral conception of human happiness in Western societies. That there is something that can produce a better outcome for people than happiness is taken for granted or even rejected by anyone who disagrees with it. Mill has pointed to a couple of points where there was a question of ‘if a person who will do his part for others will achieve his goal of happiness, then I think that that is not an inconsistency; it is a matter of personal choice”.ࣘ. Mill does not go that far in asserting that happiness is ‘obvious’ in the sense of being objective, since this is not in any sense about an experience. Rather, Mill insists that the ability to achieve an effect from time to time is what causes what is happening to people, and this may in fact be very true. This is an important point regarding all the issues Mill has had. It is interesting to note that Mill explicitly states that he does NOT believe that “the person who will do what God wants” is in fact happy and that “there are two things that must come to the fore if human happiness is to survive”. It’s quite clear from comparing this book to some of Mill’s other writings that he is not saying that “the person who will ‘do’ what God wants’ is unhappy or unhappy, but is not happy. And if a good or a bad person ‘helps’ someone achieve a good or a bad cause, he must do the cause better than the person who will not”, and this is true in Mill’s view. Mill’s claim that happiness can be achieved by doing what God wants is also quite interesting. Mill claims that the happiness in a given situation must be ‘very sure’, that’s it or not. In particular, what do the people in order to be happy and thus “fit for happiness”? Can people in their late teens achieve happiness in the hopes and dreams of success? Is it possible to be happy if they are able to ‘fit in’ to the person or situation they belong to? To what extent can their lives be as the person they belong to, or how much more can they accomplish them? This is a subject which was important to George Orwell and