Perfil

Registrado: hace 3 años, 7 meses

Williams and Mill’s argument on Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism morality theory states that “an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.” Both Mill and Williams presents their argument on Group Eudaimonistic Utilitarianism: an ethical theory that asserts that happiness is the ultimate desire of humanity, with its actions resulting into the greatest good for a large proportion of the human race. This theory operates under the utility principle, hence a consequentialist theory, where the consequences of an action determine its rightness or wrongness. Mill Stuart is a proponent of Group Eudaimonistic Utilitarianism while Williams is opposed to the theory.

Mill defends this ethical theory of utilitarianism by stating that the greatest principle of happiness is “that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote hire someone to do my homework click to read happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Bernard Williams in “A Critique of Utilitarianism” opposes Mill’s theory by explaining how this theory conflicts human nature. First, Williams highlights that Group Eudaimonistic Utilitarianism discredits personal moral feelings (of wrong or right) as being “self-indulgent”. According to Williams, this theory acts against rational utilitarianism. He argues that “there is something dishonorable about such self-indulgence”.

William further argues that Group Eudaimonistic Utilitarianism uses the majority rule to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action, which is irrational. Williams proceed to dismiss the consequentialist aspect of group utilitarianism. In his argument, Williams asserts that it would lead to “negative responsibility”. Therefore, it would be irrational to take a moral decision founding your reasoning on utilitarianism.

Moral Worth: Kant’s Vs. Mill essay

These two philosophers present diverse position of determination of a moral worth. According to Kant, it is the intention and good will of the agent that determines the moral worthiness of his/her action. On the contrary, Mill purports that “it is the consequences of our actions that determine their moral worth.” Kant believes that practical reasoning is a critical tool use subreddit when you need help writing an essay that determines moral standards. He is also argues that universalization is the only single moral principle that accounts for the morality of an action. Kant’s main concept of morality is based on the philosophy that all morally corrects actions posse “good will”, hence every decision founded on moral law definitely constitutes “good action”. He further highlights that it is not the outcome or consequence of an action that constitutes “good will” but the desire to act rightfully for the good of others. Therefore, an intention backed by moral duty is eligible for “good will”.

In conclusion, as opposed to Kant’s moral philosophy which offers no option for choice of actions, Mill’s philosophy provides the agent with a range of flexible actions to choose from based on personal evaluation of the possible outcomes. In many occasion, people act in harmony to Mill’s theory, as one access the outcome and opt for an action that would maximize positive results for personal and general public. Mill’s theory of “difficulties in calculation” is supported by other philosophers such as Warburton. However, the probability in the difficulty of calculations limits this theory of Mill because quite often it impossible to correctly calculate the possible consequential value or utility of our action. Thus, Kant’s theory of ‘good will’ is more practical than the Mill’s moral philosophy.

---

Foros

Debates iniciados: 0

Respuestas creadas: 0

Perfil del foro: Espectador