In John Stuart Mill’s essay ‘Selections from Utilitarianism’, Mill provides a compelling argument for his theory in normative ethics called Utilitarianism. Utility can be defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain; therefore the main principle of utilitarianism is that “actions are right if they tend to stimulate happiness (pleasure) whereas actions can be classified as wrong if they produce pain.

What I found most interesting in Mill’s passage in chapter 2 was the discussion of the higher and lower pleasures. Mill argues that there are different qualities of pleasure, and only agents that have a wide array of experiences are able to dictate which pleasure are of a higher quality and which are not. However, what I didn’t really agree with was how someone’s experiences should have an affect on what consists of pleasure.  For example, if someone with a vast range experience carries out an action of what I would define as low quality pleasure such as washing cars free of charge and then told me he committing a high quality pleasure action I would disagree. Secondly, at what point in their life is someone considered having a wide range of experiences, therefore I find the whole technique of measuring pleasure and pain with utility implausible as I feel utility can be thought of as quite a subjective term in that quality of pleasure differs from individual to individual. Additionally, another flaw with measuring by utility is that what actually consists of higher quality pleasure. Does higher quality pleasure mean that it is more educationally beneficial or does it mean that it is more beneficial to someone other than the individual, such as an altruistic action? In chapter 2, Mill addresses the thought that the most righteous agents are those give up their own happiness to provide happiness for other people, however I feel that if this is true someone has to lose pleasure for others to gain pleasure and that in net effect there may not always be an increase in pleasure. For example if someone has to go through pain without any monetary reward in order to make someone else have increased pleasure should that still be considered as an increase in pleasure? Therefore I agree that people who sacrifice in order to make others happy can be considered as an increase in pleasure but only if the person going through the pain feels a form of reward from the recipient’s increase in pleasure.  If going by the theory of utilitarianism, should morals play a part in deciding ones actions or should it only be on whether the action creates high quality pleasure. For example, drugs such as cocaine increases the ability for the brain to reuptake dopamine, a neurotransmitter that increases pleasure and reward, but is highly illegal and not deemed morally permissible in various cultures, but by the law of utilitarianism the use of cocaine promotes pleasure so by that definition there should be nothing wrong with it. So I feel that utilitarianism doesn’t really look at the morals behind the action just the reward that comes with the action, which I feel wrong because many negative actions have positive rewards, a lot of them associated with crime and corruptions.

To conclude, I feel that utilitarianism can be quite a plausible normative ethical and I personally feel that positive outcomes from actions should be the mindset one has before committing an action however there are some criticism of utilitarianism that also makes me think twice about fully believing that this framework is completely sound.

Bibliography

Bennet, C. (2010). What is this thing called Ethics? NY: Saxon Graphics.

Mill. (1869). Utilitarianism. Mill.