Philosophy 320
Professor Galloway
09/07/2017
Response: Utilitarianism
After reading through Mill’s and Kant’s essays on utilitarianism, I was thoroughly
confused. I reread them a few times and did some research online, but I feel like I have a
general understanding now of the points they were trying to get across.
John Mill’s essay, “Utilitarianism,” is not only an explanation of what this particular
moral theory is, but is also a response to those who had condemned it in the past. To start,
various people claimed that utility is in opposition to pleasure. Mills responds to this claiming
merely the opposite – that utility is pleasure, and the entire goal of it is to seek the most
possible happiness for everyone. Mill explains that the theory revolves around one’s morality
being rooted in what could bring that person, and everyone else the most pleasure. If there are
options between what one should decide, the person is inherently drawn to the one that will
bring the most happiness.
Mill, additionally, points out that some people claimed with utilitarianism, there is no
“higher end” than pleasure, and that people who follow this doctrine are “swine”. Mill then
goes on to say that it is ridiculous that anyone could compare humans to beasts, because the
degrees of happiness humans feel is on a whole other level than that of animals.
I believe that utilitarianism is not inherently in humans to start with. I don’t believe all
humans live like this, just selfish ones. A good moral decision is made with understanding the
consequences ahead of time – unlike what utilitarianism states.
Professor Galloway
09/07/2017
Response: Utilitarianism
After reading through Mill’s and Kant’s essays on utilitarianism, I was thoroughly
confused. I reread them a few times and did some research online, but I feel like I have a
general understanding now of the points they were trying to get across.
John Mill’s essay, “Utilitarianism,” is not only an explanation of what this particular
moral theory is, but is also a response to those who had condemned it in the past. To start,
various people claimed that utility is in opposition to pleasure. Mills responds to this claiming
merely the opposite – that utility is pleasure, and the entire goal of it is to seek the most
possible happiness for everyone. Mill explains that the theory revolves around one’s morality
being rooted in what could bring that person, and everyone else the most pleasure. If there are
options between what one should decide, the person is inherently drawn to the one that will
bring the most happiness.
Mill, additionally, points out that some people claimed with utilitarianism, there is no
“higher end” than pleasure, and that people who follow this doctrine are “swine”. Mill then
goes on to say that it is ridiculous that anyone could compare humans to beasts, because the
degrees of happiness humans feel is on a whole other level than that of animals.
I believe that utilitarianism is not inherently in humans to start with. I don’t believe all
humans live like this, just selfish ones. A good moral decision is made with understanding the
consequences ahead of time – unlike what utilitarianism states.
