A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF JOHN STUART MILL'S THEORY OF UTILITARIANISM

BY

KANU, SAMSON CHINEDUM

2019/HU/12350

A PROJECT WORK SUBMITTED TO PHILOSOPHY UNIT,

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION, FACULTY OF

HUMANITIES, ALEX EKWUEME FEDERAL UNIVERSITY NDUFU-

ALIKE, EBONYI STATE. IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (B.A)

DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY

SUPERVISOR : DR. VITALIS UGWU

FEBRUARY, 2024
 CERTIFICATION

We hereby certify that this project work, titled "A Critical Appraisal of John Stuart Mill's Theory

of Utilitarianism" was carried out by Kanu, Samson Chinedum, with the registration number:

2019/HU/12350, of Philosophy unit, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Faculty of

Humanities, Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike, Ebonyi State, under our

supervision. We therefore recommend the work for the award of a Bachelor of Arts Degree in

Philosophy.

Dr. Vitalis Ugwu ............................... ..............................

(Supervisor) Sign Date

Dr. Kingsley N. Okoro .............................. .............................

(Head, Department of Philosophy Sign Date

and Religion)

Dr. Benedict O. Nweke ............................ ............................

(Dean, Faculty of Humanities) Sign Date

Prof. Paul I. Oguguo ........................... ..........................

(External Examiner) Sign Date

 DECLARATION

I, Kanu, Samson Chinedum, with the registration number: 2019/HU/12350, declared that this

project work titled, "A Critical Appraisal of John Stuart Mill's Theory of Utilitarianism" was

written by me, and it is an original work and it has not been submitted wholly or in part for the

award of Degree in any other institution.

Kanu, Samson Chinedum ............................... ................................

(2019/HU/12350) Sign Date

 DEDICATION

This project work on Utilitarianism is dedicated to God Almighty, to my beloved mother, Mrs.

Edith Kanu, and to all humanity to the pursuit of understanding and applying the principles of

utilitarian philosophy to enhance the well-being of human.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My immense thanks goes to Almighty God, the giver of wisdom and knowledge for being with

me since the beginning of my academic pursuits and my research work till its end. I am grateful

also to my God's given supervisor, Dr. Vitalis Ugwu, whose encouragement, advice, wisdom,

understanding and helpful suggestions enhanced the quality of this work. It will be contemptuous

if I fail to recognise the tangible efforts of my beloved lecturers, Dr. Charles N. Okolie, Dr.

Francis C. Ofoegbu, Dr. Stephen O. Aigbonoga, Dr. Edward A. Okoro, Dr. Hillary O. Eze, Dr.

Kingsley C. Solomon, Dr. Linus O. Akudolu, Dr. C. E. C. Anyaora, Dr. Solomon Eyesan, Mr.

Kelechi O. Naze, Mrs. Esther O. Ogbu, Mr. Kenneth Odanwu, for they are the pillars behinds my

academic solidarity. I am sincerely grateful to you all.

My special thanks goes to my beloved mother, Mrs. Edith Kanu, and my sibblings, Mrs.

Chinenye Okorie, Justice N. Kanu, Mrs. Justina Ogbonnaya, Engr. Emmanuel C. Kanu, and

Chinomso S. Kanu, for their efforts and supports to ensure that my academic pursuit becomes a

success. More so, with honour and gratitude, my special thanks goes to these philanthropists:

HRH. Uchendu Okorie, Chief Barr. Prince Chigoziem Okechukwu , Esq., and Mr. Onyeabor

Okorie, for their efforts and support towards my education.

I also want to appreciate my academic mentor, Ike Kenneth Oguchi for his efforts to make sure I

am being guided and tutored well. Also, I acknowledge my lovely friends, colleagues and

classmates for their love. May God Almighty bless you all.
 ABSTRACT

This research critically examines the utilitarian philosophy of John Stuart Mill, focusing on its

ethical implications and societal relevance. Utilitarianism, a moral theory, asserts that actions

are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they produce unhappiness or pain. Mill

expanded this theory, emphasising the quality of pleasure and individual rights. While Mill's

utilitarianism has been influential, questions arise regarding its applicability in diverse moral

dilemmas and the potential conflicts with individual rights and justice. This study aims to

examine the applicability and limitations of Mill's utilitarianism in modern ethical dilemmas,

and also its practicality in guiding ethical decision-making and addressing potential conflicts

with individual liberties. Understanding Mill's utilitarianism is crucial for individuals,

policymakers, and ethicists, as it influences moral reasoning and societal norms. This study

employs a method of analysis, exposition, and evaluation in investigating and explaining Mill's

utilitarianism which says that an action is good if the produce happiness, bad if they produce

pain. Findings reveal both the strengths and limitations of Mill's Utilitarianism in guiding moral

choices, illustrating its relevance and potential shortcomings in today's ethical landscape. In

essence, this research contributes to the ongoing dialogue on ethical frameworks, shedding

light on the enduring relevance of Mill's Utilitarianism and its implications for contemporary

moral philosophy and decision-making

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Certification

Declaration

Dedication

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

1.2. Statement of the Problem

1.3. Objectives of the Study

1.4. Significance of the Study

1.5. Scope of the Study

1.6. Methodology

1.7. Clarification of Terms

Works Cited

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Reviews of Related Literatures

Works Cited

CHAPTER THREE: EXPOSITION OF JOHN STUART MILL'S UTILITARIANISM

3.1. Brief Biography of John Stuart Mill

3.2. The Concept of Utilitarianism

3.3. Historical Context of Utilitarianism

3.4. Types of Utilitarianism

3.5. Differences Between Mill's and Bentham's Utilitarianism

Works Cited

CHAPTER FOUR: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF MILL'S THEORY OF

UTILITARIANISM

4.1. The Greatest Happiness Principle

4.2. Higher and Lower Pleasures

4.3. Individual Liberty and the Harm Principle

4.4. Utilitarianism and Public Policy

Works Cited
CHAPTER FIVE: EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

5.1. Evaluation

5.2. Conclusion

Works Cited

REFERENCES
 CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

Happiness is regarded as the ultimate goal of man throughout philosophy's development, and

leading a moral or virtuous life is the only path that leads to such a goal. To be virtuous, one

must demonstrate and act morally upright. So, in order to regulate and protect people, man

creates laws whose goal is to increase the community's overall happiness. Even when some

actions and laws cause pain and suffering, that does not automatically make them wicked or

wrong. Even when certain behaviours are not enjoyable, they are nonetheless seen as morally

right and beneficial. Additionally, there are still additional behaviours that, despite being

delightful, are evil and sinful.

The philosophy of utilitarianism has uniquely captivated the minds of individuals more than any

other school of thought, owing to its clarity and its affirmation of the widespread belief that

everyone inherently seeks happiness and a fulfilling life. This ideology posits that the pursuit of

pleasure is a fundamental driving force behind all human behaviors. Its appeal lies in its

straightforward acknowledgment of the majority's shared desire for happiness, resonating with

a universal human aspiration. By recognizing the centrality of pleasure in shaping human

actions, utilitarianism offers a lens through which to analyze and understand the motivations

that underpin various behaviors. This profound connection between the pursuit of pleasure and
human conduct contributes to the enduring fascination and widespread acceptance of

utilitarian principles in the realm of philosophical thought.

However, the focus of this study is on a specific ethical theory and its response to the

fundamental ethical question: What is the yardstick for gauging a person's moral behaviour?

What is the moral standard of morality? Until now, John Stuart Mill's moral philosophy has

attempted to serve as a standard or direction for people's behaviour. His ideology had an

impact on men's thinking and creativity since it supported a basic thesis that the majority of

them already held. J.S. Mill opposed William Paley's theological utilitarianism, ethical

intuitionism, moral sense theory of ethics, and other ethical theories together with his father

and Jeremy Bentham. Though Bentham and Mill are the strong supporters of Utilitarian

concept there are some differences between their approaches. While Bentham focused on

quantity of pleasure, considering the intensity and duration of pleasure. "Each individual and

each legislator is concerned with avoiding pain and achieving pleasure. But pleasures and pains

differ from each other and therefore have different values" (Stumf 368). He believed that

pleasure and pain can be measured arithmetically using the hedonist the calculus.

However, Mill on the other hand emphasised the quality of pleasure, giving importance to

higher intellectual and moral pleasures. "Mill went beyond mere quantitative hedonism, to a

qualitative hedonism where the moral value of life is found in the higher pleasures of man's

higher faculties" (Stumf 376). Additionally, Mill incorporated rule utilitarianism, suggesting that

certain rules or principles could lead to the greatest happiness overall, even if individual

instances might not maximise happiness. In contrast, Bentham's utilitarianism is more aligned
with act utilitarianism, evaluating each action separately based on its consequences, that is, an

action is good if it promotes happiness or pleasure, and bad if it promotes unhappiness or pain.

In his words, "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of

every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish

the happiness of the party whose interest is in question" (Bentham 14).

As we mentioned before, every ethical theory has its own interpretation of what constitutes an

individual's behaviour as right or wrong, good or terrible. Regarding the morality's core

principles and content, there is no widespread consensus. Mill, however, did not allow any

appeal to alleged rational intuition. He emphasised on the consequences of behaviour as the

criterion for what is good instead of a dutiful obedience to formal rules of conduct. According

to Mill:

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest

Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to

promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By

happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain,

and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up

by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it

includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open

question (Mill 14).

Utilitarianism provides these explanations by identifying the principles that, in a particular

situation, contribute to happiness or pleasure and those that cause unhappiness and suffering.
The degree to which a rule of conduct is beneficial to happiness, as opposed to pleasure and

misery, becomes the test of what is acceptable and improper behaviour. Therefore,

utilitarianism as a moral theory asserts and suggests that an act's morality is primarily

determined by its utility as a way of achieving human happiness. Therefore, an action is positive

if it aids in increasing pleasure and reducing suffering, not only for the actor but for that of

others: "The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not

the agent’s 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" (Lawhead 476).

In his exploration, John Stuart Mill articulates the central tenet that the ultimate objective of

human behavior is the pursuit of happiness. According to the utilitarian principle he advocates,

individuals are obligated to act in a manner that not only enhances their own happiness and

pleasure but also contributes to the well-being of others. Mill's perspective emphasizes the

broader societal impact of actions, positing that ethical conduct involves promoting happiness

not just on an individual level but extending it to encompass the greater community. This

philosophical stance underscores the interconnectedness of human behaviors and their

collective influence on fostering happiness and pleasure in a communal context.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

.There have existed lots of conflicts, disagreements and intolerable attitudes in matters of

moral issues as individuals tend to resist the concerted actions demanded in a society. Indeed,

from the dawn of philosophy, the question concerning the "Summum Bonum" or "the yardstick
for measuring the morality of human actions" has been accounted the main problem in

speculative thought. It therefore, gave rise to various sects and schools carrying on a vigorous

warfare against one another. The utilitarian principle is seen and has been held as the true

standard of morality and most reliable measurement for distinguishing good actions from the

bad actions. The goodness (right) or badness (wrong) of an action lies in its usefulness as means

for attainment of happiness or pleasure and diminishing pain.

Nevertheless, the utilitarianism has been unable to deal with certain kinds of moral issues like

rights and justice. There are certain actions that utilitarianism regards as morally right yet, they

violate people's right and deny them of justice too. This implies that utilitarianism looks only at

how much utility is produced and fails to take into account how that utility is achieved or

distributed among members of a society. More still, it becomes difficult too to evaluate the

ethical propriety of any decision. It means therefore that utilitarianism seems to ignore certain

important aspects of ethics since; it holds the principle that right actions in any situation in are

the one that will produce the greatest benefit(s). Hence, the end justifies the means but this

principle is unacceptable.

1.3. Objectives of the Study

This study aims to examine John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism, a moral philosophy that suggests

the best action is the one that maximises overall happiness or pleasure and minimises suffering,

aims to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The study adopts the

following objectives:
 i. To explore the core concepts of utilitarianism, a moral philosophy that suggests human

actions should be justified based on their intended goals. Break down the fundamental

principles in simple language to enhance comprehension.

ii. To investigate how J.S. Mill's utilitarianism serves as a practical tool in society,

influencing and shaping people's attitudes. Examine its role in directing and defining

human actions, emphasizing its significance in guiding individuals towards a good and

moral life.

iii. To conduct a critical analysis of utilitarianism and its underlying premises. Assess its

effectiveness in fostering an open-minded approach to moral issues and contributing to

the creation of a better society. Identify potential areas of improvement or refinement

for enhancing its impact on human behavior.

1.4. Significance of the Study

This study on John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism is highly significant as it widens our understanding

of moral philosophy. It provides valuable guidance for ethical decision-making, extending its

influence across diverse domains like public policy, politics, and governance. This philosophical

framework serves as a lasting reference in ethical discussions, resonating in today's complex

moral landscape. Its enduring relevance is evident as it contributes insights to navigate

contemporary ethical challenges. The profound impact of Mill's utilitarianism extends beyond

theoretical realms, shaping practical approaches to morality. Its continued influence

underscores its pertinence in addressing nuanced ethical dilemmas, emphasizing its importance

as a cornerstone in the ongoing dialogue on morality in our modern world. In essence, delving
into Mill's utilitarianism unveils layers of ethical understanding and offers a robust framework

for navigating the complexities of moral decision-making in diverse societal contexts.

1.5. Scope of the Study

This work focuses on the utilitarian principle as highlighted by John Stuart Mill, aiming to grasp

the core principles of Mill's ethical theory, emphasising the pursuit of happiness and well-being

as the foundation for moral decisions. This will delve into key concepts such as the principle of

utility, higher and lower pleasures, and the idea of individual freedoms within the utilitarian

framework. By analysing Mill's influential work, we seek to understand its implications on moral

philosophy and practical applications in ethical decision-making.

1.6. Methodology

This research employs a mixed-method approach: methods of analysis, examination

and exposition in investigating and analysing J.S Mill's concept of utilitarianism which

asserts that actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they produce

unhappiness or pain. More so, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted,

summarizing key concepts and critiques on utilitarian philosophy. The combination of

these methods aims to provide a holistic understanding of Mill's utilitarianism,

considering both academic discourse and public perceptions. The study seeks to

uncover the contemporary relevance and potential challenges associated with applying

Mill's utilitarian principles in ethical decision-making. Results will contribute to a nuanced

discussion on the ongoing influence of utilitarianism in diverse societal contexts.

1.7. Clarification of Terms

The Experience Machine: The experience machine is a thought experiment first

devised by Robert Nozick in the 1970s. In the last decades of the 20th century, an

argument based on this thought experiment has been considered a knock-down

objection to hedonism about well-being, the thesis that our well-being—that is, the

goodness or badness of our lives for us—is entirely determined by our pains and

pleasures. The consensus about the strength of this argument was so vigorous that, in

manuals about ethics, it had become canonical to present hedonism as a surely false

view because of the experience machine thought experiment (Internet Encyclopaedia of

Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/experience-machine).
 Works Cited

Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. n.p.:

Batoche Books, 2000. Print.

Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. "The Experience Machine." iep.utm.edu/

experience-machine n.d. Web. 20th November, 2023.

Lawhhead, William F. Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy.

4th ed. United States: Cengage Learning, 2015. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. from a 1879 ed. n.p.: The Floating Press, 2009. Print..

Stumpf, S. Enoch. Philosophy: History & Problems. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.,

1994. Print.
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Reviews of Related Literatures

This chapter reviews the nature of utilitarianism, a moral theory that suggests actions should be

judged based on their ability to maximise overall happiness. It will examine its key principles

and implications, shedding light on the consequentialist approach that seeks the greatest good

for the greatest number. Furthermore, it chronologically shows the various views of individuals

who have written extensively on utilitarianism and how their contributions has shaped this

enduring ethical theory.

In his book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham, a

prominent figure and founder of utilitarianism argues, that the moral worth of an action is

determined by its contribution to overall happiness. He introduces the principle of utility,

asserting that actions should be judged based on their ability to maximise pleasure and

minimise pain for the greatest number of individuals. According to Bentham, pleasure and pain

are the ultimate factors shaping human behavior, and the goal of ethical decision-making is to

generate the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Bentham 14).

Furthermore, Bentham develops the hedonic calculus as a tool for evaluating the utility of

actions. This calculus considers factors such as intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity,

fecundity, purity, and extent in assessing the pleasure or pain produced by a specific act. His
utilitarianism is characterised by its consequentialist nature, focusing on the outcomes of

actions rather than their inherent qualities. While critics argue about the challenges of

measuring and comparing happiness, Bentham's utilitarianism remains influential in discussions

about ethics, policy, and societal well-being (Bentham 31-32).

Moreover, Henry Sidgwick in The Methods of Ethics. expounded his utilitarian thought. In this

treatise, Sidgwick grapples with the complexities of ethical decision-making, aiming to reconcile

competing moral theories. He asserts that the fundamental principle guiding ethical actions

should be the greatest happiness for the greatest number—a utilitarian stance. He goes beyond

the traditional hedonistic utilitarianism, incorporating a broader notion of happiness that

encompasses intellectual and aesthetic dimensions. For Sidgwick, ethical reasoning involves a

careful examination of consequences, considering both immediate and long-term effects on

overall well-being (Sidgwick 210).

Sidgwick further distinguishes between egoistic and universalistic utilitarianism, acknowledging

the tension between self-interest and the collective good. He grapples with the inherent

challenges in determining the right course of action when individual and societal interests

conflict. Sidgwick's nuanced exploration of utilitarianism reflects a sophisticated attempt to

address moral dilemmas while recognising the limitations of ethical reasoning (Sidgwick 275).

More so, G. E. Moore, upholding utilitarianism in his influential work, Principia Ethica, revolves

around the principle of the greatest happiness. Moore argues that the ultimate moral goal is to

maximise overall well-being or happiness, emphasising the importance of pleasure and the

avoidance of pain. He contends that actions should be judged based on their consequences,
with the morally right action being the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for

the greatest number of individuals. In line with Mill and unlike some other utilitarian theories,

Moore emphasises the qualitative nature of pleasure, asserting that certain pleasures are

inherently more valuable than others (Moore 25).

Furthermore, Moore introduces the idea of "organic unity," suggesting that the well-being of a

whole community is more valuable than the sum of individual well-being. In his pursuit of a

pluralistic ethical framework, he rejects ethical naturalism, arguing that goodness is indefinable

and cannot be reduced to any natural properties. Instead, he advocates for an intuitive

approach to moral philosophy, asserting that individuals possess an intrinsic sense of what is

good. Moore's utilitarianism, thus, provides a distinctive perspective within the broader

utilitarian tradition, emphasising the complexity and subjective nature of moral value (Moore

120).

However, in The Language of Morals, R. M. Hare centers his utilitarian thought on the idea of

universal prescriptivism. Hare argues that moral statements express a desire for everyone to

follow a particular principle, promoting a form of utilitarianism that emphasises consistency.

For Hare, moral reasoning involves adopting a principle that one would be willing for everyone

to follow in similar circumstances. This contrasts with classical utilitarianism, as Hare's focus is

on the form of moral principles rather than the consequences of actions. As he puts it,

"Prescriptivism holds that when we say, for example, that a certain action is right, we are

recommending everyone to perform that action in similar situations" (Hare 33).

Moreover, Hare introduces the concept of "two-level utilitarianism," distinguishing between

critical moral reasoning and everyday decision-making. In everyday situations, individuals may

rely on intuitive moral judgments, while critical moral reasoning involves adopting principles

that are consistent and universalisable. He argues that the two-level approach reconciles the

practicality of everyday decision-making with the need for systematic moral principles,

providing a nuanced perspective on utilitarian ethics (Hare 125)

Also, Peter Singer, a prominent utilitarian philosopher argues for a consequentialist ethical

framework that emphasises maximising overall well-being in his book, Practical Ethics. Singer

asserts that actions should be judged based on their outcomes, with the goal of achieving the

greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals. Utilitarianism, according to Singer,

requires individuals to consider the consequences of their actions on the well-being of sentient

beings, regardless of species. This utilitarian perspective challenges traditional moral

boundaries, urging us to extend our moral circle beyond humans and include non-human

animals in our ethical considerations (Singer 23).

Moreover, Singer's utilitarian approach extends to addressing global issues, as evident in The

Life You Can Save. He argues that individuals have a moral obligation to alleviate suffering and

promote well-being on a global scale by donating a significant portion of their income to

effective charities. Singer's utilitarianism, therefore, advocates for a practical and impactful

ethical stance that seeks to reduce overall suffering and enhance the quality of life for all

sentient beings (Singer 45).

Unlike other utilitarians, Derek Parfit in Reasons and Persons, presents a distinctive form of

utilitarianism that diverges from traditional hedonistic views. Parfit's version emphasises

objective list theory, asserting that certain things are inherently good, irrespective of individual

desires. For instance, he contends that the existence of suffering and pleasure holds intrinsic

value, arguing that once a certain threshold of well-being is attained, additional increments

contribute less to overall goodness (Parfitt 13).

Furthermore, Parfit challenges the separateness of persons, a key aspect of his utilitarian

stance. He suggests that personal identity is not as crucial as commonly thought for moral

considerations. He explores the implications of these ideas on ethical choices, notably

addressing population ethics and the non-identity problem. Parfit's nuanced utilitarianism,

anchored in objective goods and a reevaluation of personal identity, offers a distinctive

perspective that has sparked considerable debate in moral philosophy (Partif 216).

However, unlike Bentham, Sidgewick and other supporters of utilitarianism, Robert Nozick, in

his in his influential work, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, challenges the foundational principles of

utilitarian ethics. Nozick contends that utilitarianism, which prioritises the maximisation of

overall happiness, neglects the importance of individual rights and liberties. He argues that a

society built solely on utilitarian principles could potentially lead to the infringement of

individual rights, as sacrifices for the greater good might justify actions that violate personal

freedoms. Nozick asserts that individuals possess inviolable rights and that any system founded

solely on utility fails to respect these rights, creating a moral dilemma (Nozick 44).
Furthermore, Nozick introduces the concept of the "experience machine" to illustrate the

limitations of utilitarianism. He suggests that individuals value not only happiness but also the

authenticity of their experiences. His thought experiment challenges the utilitarian emphasis on

maximising pleasure, as it highlights that people inherently seek genuine, unaltered

experiences rather than mere pleasure. This critique serves as a fundamental objection to the

utilitarian framework, asserting that individual autonomy and the authenticity of experiences

should be integral components of ethical considerations (Nozick 45-46).

Also, J.J.C Smart and Benard Williams in their book, Utilitarianism: For and Against, engages in a

profound exploration of utilitarian ethical theory, presenting arguments both in favor of and

against this consequentialist perspective. In the first part of the book, Smart supporting

utilitarianism, advocates for utilitarianism, contending that actions should be judged based on

their overall contribution to the greatest happiness for the greatest number. He emphasises the

simplicity and clarity of utilitarian principles, asserting that they provide a straightforward guide

for moral decision-making (Smart and Williams 3-9).

Conversely, Williams like Nozick challenges utilitarianism in the second part of the book, raising

thought-provoking critiques against its core tenets. Williams questions the practicality of

calculating and maximising happiness, highlighting potential conflicts between individual rights

and the pursuit of overall well-being. He introduces the concept of "integrity," arguing that

blindly adhering to utilitarian principles may compromise personal integrity and lead to morally

objectionable actions (Smart and Williams 77-93).

Altogether, it can be seen that Bentham advocated for actions that maximise overall happiness.

His strength lies in providing a clear, quantitative framework for moral decision-making through

the principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. However, his weakness stems

from the challenge of measuring and comparing pleasures, as well as the potential for majority

tyranny, overlooking minority interests. Furthermore, Sidwick's refined version of utilitarianism

incorporates both hedonistic and idealistic aspects. While he addresses some of Bentham's

concerns, Sidgwick's complexity poses challenges in practical application. More so, Moore

introduced the idea of intrinsic value and criticised hedonistic utilitarianism, highlighting the

weakness of reducing morality solely to pleasure. However, Moore's non-naturalism raises

questions about the source of intrinsic value.

Furthermore, Hare's preference utilitarianism adds nuance by considering individual

preferences, yet it struggles with the practicality of assessing and aggregating these

preferences. However, Singer extends utilitarianism to animal rights and global ethics,

broadening its scope but facing criticism for potential impracticality. Nevertheless, Parfit's

consequentialist views emphasise the importance of outcomes but grapple with identity-

related issues. Alternatively, Nozick's critique emphasises individual rights, revealing

weaknesses in utilitarian disregard for individual liberties. Additionally, Smart's rule-

utilitarianism offers a middle ground but faces challenges in defining the appropriate rules.

While Bernard Williams criticises utilitarianism for sacrificing personal integrity, shedding light

on the tension between individual values and overall happiness.

 Works Cited

Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. n.p.:

Batoche Books, 2000. Print.

Hare, R.M. Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1981. Web.

Hare, R. M. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1952. Web.

Moore, G. E. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1903. Web.

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974. Print.

Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Web.

Sidgwick, Henry. The Methods of Ethics. London: Dover Publications,1907. Print.

Smart, J.J.C, and Bernard Williams. Utilitarianism: For and Against. New York:

Cambridge UP, 1973. Print.

 CHAPTER THREE

EXPOSITION OF JOHN STUART MILL'S UTILITARIANISM

3.1. Brief Biography of John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was an English philosopher, political economist, politician and civil

servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the history of classical liberalism, he contributed

widely to social theory, political theory, and political economy. Dubbed "the most influential

English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century" by the Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, he conceived of liberty as justifying the freedom of the individual in opposition to

unlimited state and social control (Wikipedia).

Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by his predecessor Jeremy

Bentham. He contributed to the investigation of scientific methodology, though his knowledge

of the topic was based on the writings of others, notably William Whewell, John Herschel, and

Auguste Comte, and research carried out for Mill by Alexander Bain. He engaged in written

debate with Whewell (Wikipedia).

A member of the Liberal Party and author of the early feminist work The Subjection of Women,

Mill was also the second member of Parliament to call for women's suffrage after Henry Hunt in

1832 (Wikipedia).

3.2. The Concept of Utilitarianism

According to Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, utilitarianism is a theory about rightness,

according to which the only good thing is welfare (wellbeing or ‘utility’). Welfare should, in

some way, be maximised, and agents are to be neutral between their own welfare, and that of

other people and of other sentient beings.

It's a moral philosophy that suggests the best action is the one that maximises overall happiness

or pleasure and minimises suffering. In other words, it aims to achieve the greatest good for the

greatest number of people. This ethical approach, championed by philosophers like Jeremy

Bentham and later refined by John Stuart Mill, focuses on the consequences of actions.

Utilitarians believe that an action is morally right if it leads to happiness and wrong if it leads to

unhappiness.

For instance, consider a scenario where a government must decide on healthcare policies. A

utilitarian approach would analyse the potential consequences of different policies on the

overall well-being of the population. If a policy increases access to healthcare and improves

health outcomes for a large number of people, it aligns with utilitarian principles. This emphasis

on the overall happiness and welfare of society distinguishes utilitarianism as a consequentialist

ethical framework.

3.3. Historical Context of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, rooted in the pursuit of happiness and the greatest good for the greatest

number, traces its historical roots back to ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. While

Epicurus himself didn't use the term "utilitarianism," his emphasis on pleasure and

absence of pain laid the groundwork for this ethical theory.

Moving forward, the utilitarian concept gained prominence during the Enlightenment

era. Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher, is considered the father of utilitarianism.

In his work "Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation," Bentham

articulated the principle of utility, asserting that actions are right to the extent that they

promote happiness or pleasure and wrong to the extent that they produce pain or

suffering (Bentham 14). Bentham's utilitarianism is often referred to as act utilitarianism,

as it focuses on evaluating the morality of individual actions based on their

consequences.

John Stuart Mill, another influential figure in the development of utilitarianism, expanded

upon Bentham's ideas. In his essay "Utilitarianism," Mill introduced rule utilitarianism,

arguing that the morality of actions should be assessed by the general principles or

rules that lead to the greatest happiness when followed consistently (Mill 4). Mill's

contributions aimed to address some criticisms of Bentham's approach, providing a

more nuanced and flexible understanding of utilitarian ethics.

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, utilitarianism continued to evolve. Scholars like

Henry Sidgwick refined the theory, emphasising the distinction between act and rule

utilitarianism. Sidgwick's influential work, "The Methods of Ethics," scrutinised the

complexities of ethical reasoning within a utilitarian framework (Sidgwick 35). The 20th

century witnessed further developments, with philosophers such as R.M. Hare

contributing to the consequentialist discussions in "The Language of Morals."

In contemporary times, utilitarianism remains a key player in ethical discussions. Peter

Singer, in his work "Practical Ethics," applies utilitarian principles to real-world issues
like global poverty and animal rights, extending the reach of utilitarian thought into

practical ethical considerations.

3.4. Types of Utilitarianism

o Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism, as conceived by Jeremy Bentham, is a moral theory that evaluates

each individual action based on its ability to maximise overall happiness. Bentham

argued that the right action is the one that produces the greatest net pleasure or

happiness for the greatest number of people involved. In simple terms, act utilitarianism

encourages us to consider the consequences of each action and choose the one that

results in the greatest overall well-being.

For instance, imagine a situation where a person has the choice to either tell a small lie

to protect someone's feelings or tell the truth, which might hurt them. Act utilitarianism

would assess the consequences of each option. If telling a small lie leads to greater

overall happiness by maintaining harmony and avoiding unnecessary suffering, it would

be considered the morally right action according to act utilitarianism.

While act utilitarianism provides a flexible framework for decision-making, critics argue

that it may lead to morally questionable outcomes if short-term happiness is prioritised

over long-term well-being or if individual rights are sacrificed for the greater good.

o Rule Utilitarianism

Rule Utilitarianism, championed by John Stuart Mill, is a branch of utilitarian ethics that

suggests we should follow rules that, when consistently applied, lead to the greatest
overall happiness for society. Instead of assessing each individual action separately,

rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of adopting certain rules and adhering

to them in a general sense.

For example, consider the rule "tell the truth." In a specific instance, telling the truth

might cause immediate harm or discomfort, but as a general rule, truthfulness

contributes to trust in society. Rule utilitarians argue that overall happiness is maximised

when individuals follow such rules consistently. This approach seeks to balance the

need for flexibility in decision-making with the goal of creating stable and beneficial

societal norms.

Critics argue that rule utilitarianism may still face challenges when certain rules conflict

or when following a rule leads to negative consequences. However, Mill believed that by

examining the overall impact of rules on society, we can create a framework that

promotes the greatest happiness for the majority while respecting individual well-being.

o Preference Utilitarianism

Preference Utilitarianism, as advocated by philosopher R.M. Hare, focuses on

maximising the satisfaction of individuals' preferences or desires. In simple terms, it

suggests that what makes an action morally right is its ability to fulfill people's wants and

wishes. Unlike classical utilitarianism, which emphasises overall happiness, Preference

Utilitarianism considers the importance of personal preferences.

Imagine a scenario where a group of friends is deciding on what movie to watch. In a

preference utilitarian approach, the best choice would be the movie that most aligns

with the preferences of the majority, ensuring that the collective desires are fulfilled.
This theory values not only the quantity of happiness but also the quality derived from

satisfying specific preferences.

However, critics argue that this approach can face challenges in determining whose

preferences should be prioritised. However, Preference Utilitarianism offers a nuanced

perspective, recognising the diversity of individual desires.

3.5. Differences Between Mill's and Bentham's Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, prominent utilitarian philosophers, share the

foundational idea that the morality of an action is determined by its contribution to

overall happiness. However, there are significant differences in their approaches to

utilitarianism.

Firstly, one key distinction lies in their views on pleasure. Bentham, in his work

"Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation," argues for quantitative

hedonism, asserting that all pleasures and pains can be measured arithmetically

(Lawhhead 472). On the other hand, Mill, in "Utilitarianism," introduces qualitative

hedonism, contending that not all pleasures are equal. Mill suggests that intellectual and

moral pleasures are of higher quality than mere physical pleasures (Lawhhead 475).

This difference implies that Mill values the well-being derived from higher faculties,

allowing for a more nuanced evaluation of happiness.

Furthermore, the concept of the "greatest happiness principle" is interpreted differently

by Mill and Bentham. Bentham focuses on the maximisation of pleasure and the

minimisation of pain without considering the varying qualities of pleasures. In contrast,

Mill, introduces the idea of higher and lower pleasures. He adds: "Of two pleasures, if
there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided

preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more

desirable pleasure" (Mill 16). He argues that intellectual and moral pleasures contribute

more to human happiness than simple sensual pleasures. This distinction alters the

utilitarian calculus, emphasising the significance of qualitative differences in the pursuit

of overall happiness.

Lastly, the issue of justice and individual rights is approached differently by Mill and

Bentham. Bentham's utilitarianism tends to prioritise collective happiness over individual

rights, suggesting that the end justifies the means. Mill, however, in "On Liberty,"

introduces the harm principle, asserting that individuals have the right to act as they

please unless their actions harm others. Mill maintains: "That the sole end for which

mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action

of any of their number, is selfprotection. That the only purpose for which power can be

rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to

prevent harm to others" (Mill 18). Mill's perspective incorporates a safeguard for

individual liberties within the utilitarian framework, acknowledging the importance of

protecting individual rights even in the pursuit of overall happiness.

 Works Cited

Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. n.p.:

Batoche Books, 2000. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. from a 1909 edition. n.p.: The Floating Press, 2009. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. from a 1879 ed. n.p.: The Floating Press, 2009. Print.

Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. "Utilitarianism." www.rep.routledge.com/

articles/thematic/utilitarianism/v-1/sections/conceptions-of-utility n.d. Web.

25th October, 2023.

Sidgwick, Henry. The Methods of Ethics. London: Macmillan and Co.,1907. Print.

Smart, J.J.C, and Bernard Williams. Utilitarianism: For and Against. New York:

Cambridge UP, 1973. Print.

Wikipedia. "John Stuart Mill." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill n.d. Web.

Accessed 25th October 2023.

 CHAPTER FOUR

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF MILL'S THEORY OF UTILITARIANISM

4.1. The Greatest Happiness Principle

The Greatest Happiness Principle is a fundamental tenet in utilitarian philosophy. This principle

contends that actions are morally right to the extent that they promote happiness and wrong to

the extent that they produce the reverse of happiness. In emphasising the consequentialist

nature of morality, Mill asserts that the ultimate aim of human life is the attainment of

happiness.

To delve into Mill's perspective, it is crucial to comprehend his definition of happiness.

According to him, happiness is not merely hedonistic pleasure but encompasses the higher

faculties of intellect and sentiment. In "Utilitarianism," Mill argues that "it is better to be a

human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool

satisfied" (Mill 19). This assertion highlights the qualitative aspect of happiness, emphasising

the significance of intellectual and moral pleasures.

Furthermore, Mill contends that there are varying levels of happiness, with some pleasures

being intrinsically superior to others. In exploring this idea, Mill introduces the concept of

higher and lower pleasures. He posits that intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to mere

sensual gratifications. This hierarchical arrangement underscores the nuanced nature of the

Greatest Happiness Principle.

However, critics often argue that it reduces morality to a mere calculation of pleasure and pain.

Nevertheless, Mill addresses this concern by incorporating the notion of the quality of pleasure

into his ethical framework. He advocates for a refined understanding of happiness, wherein the

cultivation of intellectual and moral virtues takes precedence. By doing so, Mill attempts to

mitigate the potential pitfalls of a crude hedonistic calculus.

4.2. Higher and Lower Pleasures

Mill introduced the concept of higher and lower pleasures, distinguishing between intellectual

and sensual enjoyments. This dichotomy forms a crucial aspect of Mill's utilitarianism,

emphasising the qualitative distinctions among pleasures.

Mill argues that not all pleasures are equal; some possess a higher quality that stems from

intellectual and moral dimensions. He contends that the pleasures of the mind, such as the

pursuit of knowledge or engaging in cultural activities, are superior to mere bodily pleasures.

Thus, he writes:

If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes

one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being

greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there

be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided

preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the

more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently

acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even

though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and

 would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is

capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority

in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small

account. (Mill 16).

To support this claim, Mill (19) asserts that, it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a

pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. He suggests that individuals

who have experienced both higher and lower pleasures will consistently choose the former,

indicating their intrinsic superiority. Mill's differentiation between higher and lower pleasures is

a response to the criticisms of classical utilitarianism, particularly those posed by his own

father, James Mill. James Mill and other critics argued that utilitarianism reduced happiness to

a mere sum of pleasures, neglecting the qualitative distinctions between them.

Furthermore, to support his arguments, Mill draws upon the works of classical philosophers,

particularly Bentham's utilitarianism, and incorporates elements of intuitionism. He

acknowledges the criticisms of utilitarianism and strives to address them by introducing the

notion of "competent judges" who can distinguish between higher and lower pleasures. This

reliance on the discernment of those who have experienced both types of pleasure adds a

nuanced dimension to his utilitarian framework.

4.3. Individual Liberty and the Harm Principle

Mill's advocacy for individual liberty and the Harm Principle, as expounded in his seminal work

"On Liberty," stands as a cornerstone in the realm of political philosophy. The Harm Principle,

posits that the only justified limitation on an individual's freedom is to prevent harm to others.
This principle inherently underscores the significance of individual autonomy in a society

governed by the pursuit of happiness and self-development.

Mill ardently champions individual freedom, contending that society should refrain from

coercively intervening in the lives of its members unless their actions pose a direct threat to the

well-being of others. As Mill eloquently puts it, "The only purpose for which power can be

rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent

harm to others" (Mill 18). Here, it is explicit that though humans have freedom and liberty

within the society but with limitations, only if in a case or situation the action of an individual

tends to cause harm or pain to others. Mill urges individuals to live that live they like or wish

but they should make sure it does not harm others.

Moreover, Mill cogently argues that allowing individuals the liberty to make their own choices,

even if those choices are unconventional or dissenting, fosters a robust marketplace of ideas. In

the marketplace of ideas, diverse perspectives and opinions coalesce, leading to intellectual

growth and societal progress. Mill contends that stifling individual expression not only infringes

upon personal freedom but also deprives society of the intellectual diversity necessary for its

advancement.

Supporting Mill, in his work "Harm to Others," defended Individual Liberty builds upon Mill's

Harm Principle argues that, individual liberty should be restricted only to prevent harm to

others. He explores the concept of offense to others and emphasises that not all offenses justify

legal intervention; only those that result in significant harm or infringe upon the rights of others

should be restricted. Feinberg's nuanced approach aims to strike a balance between individual
freedom and societal well-being, providing a thoughtful extension of Mill's ideas (Feinberg

n.pag).

Additionally, Martha Nussbaum explores the significance of emotions in shaping our

understanding of individual freedoms. She contends that a comprehensive defense of liberty

requires a nuanced consideration of emotions, emphasising their role in fostering empathy and

rational decision-making. Nussbaum's argument delves into the intersection of emotions and

rationality. She specifically articulates how recognising and respecting diverse emotional

experiences is fundamental to safeguarding individual liberties. Nussbaum thus provides a

compelling perspective on the interplay between emotions and individual freedom in

"Upheavals of Thought (Nussbaum 158).

4.4. Utilitarianism and Public Policy

Utilitarianism, rooted in the pursuit of happiness and the greatest good for the greatest number

asserts that actions are morally right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest

number, holds a significant role in shaping public policy. In the context of public policy,

utilitarian perspective guides decision-makers to prioritise policies that maximise overall well-

being.

One key aspect of utilitarianism is the principle of utility, which posits that actions should be

judged by their contribution to happiness or pleasure. Mill argues that pleasure should be

understood in terms of quality, not just quantity. He contends that intellectual and moral

pleasures are of higher value than mere physical pleasures (Mill 16). This perspective is vital in
crafting public policies that enhance the intellectual and moral dimensions of societal well-

being.

Moreover, Mill emphasises the importance of individual liberties within the utilitarian

contending that restricting individual freedoms is justified only to prevent harm to others (Mill

18). This principle has implications for public policy, suggesting that interventions should be

limited to instances where there is a clear and demonstrable threat to societal well-being.

Policymakers are thus, urged to strike a delicate balance between promoting the greater good

and preserving individual freedoms.

Also, in the realm of public health policy, utilitarianism provides valuable insights. Consider a

policy aimed at combating a contagious disease through mandatory vaccinations. Mill's

emphasis on preventing harm aligns with such interventions, as they protect individuals and

communities from potential harm caused by the spread of disease. The utilitarian calculus here

involves weighing the discomfort or inconvenience caused by mandatory vaccinations against

the greater harm of a widespread outbreak.

However, critics argue that utilitarianism may lead to a tyranny of the majority, neglecting the

interests of minority groups. To address this concern, Mill introduces the harm principle,

asserting that interference with individual liberties is only justified when it prevents harm to

others (Mill 18). This principle acts as a safeguard against the potential abuses of utilitarian

decision-making in public policy, ensuring that the rights of minorities are protected.

In essence, incorporating utilitarianism into public policy requires a nuanced understanding of

happiness, a careful consideration of individual liberties, and a commitment to preventing

harm. Policymakers must weigh the consequences of their decisions on the overall well-being

of society, striving to create a balance that maximises happiness without sacrificing essential

individual freedoms.
 Works Cited

Feinberg, Joel. Harm to Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Web.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. from a 1909 edition. n.p.: The Floating Press, 2009. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. from a 1879 ed. n.p.: The Floating Press, 2009. Print.

Nussbaum, Martha C. Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print..

 CHAPTER FIVE

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

5.1. Evaluation

Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory, posits that the morality of an action is

determined by its ability to maximise overall happiness or pleasure. While it has notable

strengths, it also faces significant weaknesses.

One strength lies in its simplicity and practicality. Utilitarianism provides a clear and

straightforward principle for making moral decisions: choose actions that maximise overall

happiness. This simplicity facilitates ease of application in various situations, allowing

individuals to assess consequences and make decisions without intricate moral deliberations.

Bentham, a pioneer in utilitarian thought, emphasises the simplicity of the principle, stating,

"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and

pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what

we shall do" (Bentham 1).

Moreover, utilitarianism promotes a universal and impartial approach to ethics. By focusing on

the greatest good for the greatest number, it encourages decisions that benefit society as a

whole rather than favoring specific individuals or groups. This impartiality fosters a sense of

fairness and equality, aligning with the idea that everyone's happiness is of equal importance.

Mill, a key proponent of utilitarianism, argues that "actions are right in proportion as they tend
to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Mill 14). This

emphasis on happiness as the ultimate standard creates a foundation for a more just and

egalitarian society.

However, utilitarianism faces criticism for its challenges in measuring and comparing happiness.

The utilitarian calculus, which involves assessing the intensity, duration, certainty, and other

factors of pleasure and pain, proves to be a daunting task. Critics argue that quantifying

happiness in a standardised manner is practically impossible, as individuals experience and

value happiness differently. This inherent subjectivity weakens the objectivity that utilitarianism

strives to achieve. In his critique, Nozick questions, "How much pleasure do I get from listening

to music, or watching a sunset? And how does that compare to someone else's pleasure?"

(Nozick 42).

Another significant weakness of utilitarianism is its potential to justify morally reprehensible

actions. Critics contend that utilitarianism may endorse actions that violate individual rights or

lead to unjust outcomes if they contribute to overall happiness. This consequentialist approach

may overlook the inherent value of certain principles or rights, as highlighted by Rawls, who

argues for the importance of justice as fairness. He posits that a just society should prioritise

protecting the rights of individuals, even if doing so does not maximise overall happiness (Rawls

3-4).

Furthermore, utilitarianism faces challenges in addressing the concept of justice and

distributive fairness. Critics argue that a purely utilitarian approach may neglect the rights and

well-being of minorities or marginalised groups if sacrificing their interests results in greater

overall happiness. This criticism is evident in the works of Sandel who asserts that utilitarianism

risks prioritising majority interests at the expense of minority rights, undermining the principles

of justice (Sandel n.pag).

5.2. Conclusion

In conclusion, Utilitarianism is a moral theory that aims to maximise overall happiness

and minimise suffering. The core idea is that actions should be judged based on their

consequences, and the best action is the one that brings the greatest happiness to the

greatest number of people. This approach emphasises the importance of considering

the collective well-being rather than individual interests. However, Utilitarianism has

faced criticism for its potential to overlook the rights and needs of minorities or

individuals. Critics argue that it might justify actions that violate individual rights in the

pursuit of overall happiness. Additionally, determining the exact measure of happiness

and comparing different kinds of happiness poses practical challenges.

Despite these critiques, Utilitarianism continues to be a influential ethical framework,

providing a simple and accessible guide for decision-making. Its focus on promoting the

greatest good for the greatest number reflects a consequentialist perspective that

resonates with many seeking a straightforward approach to ethical dilemmas.

Ultimately, the ongoing debate surrounding Utilitarianism highlights the complexity of

balancing individual rights and the common good in ethical reasoning.

 Works Cited

Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. n.p.:

Batoche Books, 2000. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. from a 1909 edition. n.p.: The Floating Press, 2009. Print.

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974. Print.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1971. Print.

Sandel, Michael. J. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and

Giroux, n.d. Web.

 REFERENCES

Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. n.p.:

Batoche Books, 2000. Print.

Britannica. "Intuitionism." britannica.com/topic/intuitionism-ethics n.d. Web. Accessed

20th July, 2023.

Britannica. "Summum Bonum." britannica.com/topic/summum-bonum n.d. Web.

Accessed 20th July, 2023.

Feinberg, Joel. Harm to Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Web.

Hare, R.M. Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1981. Web.

Hare, R. M. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1952. Web.

Lawhhead, William F. Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy.

4th ed. United States: Cengage Learning, 2015. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. from a 1909 edition. n.p.: The Floating Press, 2009. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. from a 1879 ed. n.p.: The Floating Press, 2009. Web.

Moore, G. E. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1903. Web.

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974. Print.
Nussbaum, Martha C. Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2001. Web.

Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Web.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1971. Print.

Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. "Utilitarianism." www.rep.routledge.com/

articles/thematic/utilitarianism/v-1/sections/conceptions-of-utility n.d. Web.

25th October, 2023.

Sandel, Michael. J. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and

Giroux, n.d. Web.

Sidgwick, Henry. The Methods of Ethics. London: Dover Publications,1907. Web.

Smart, J.J.C, and Bernard Williams. Utilitarianism: For and Against. New York:

Cambridge UP, 1973. Print.

Stumpf, S. Enoch. Philosophy: History & Problems. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.,

1994. Print.

Wikipedia. "John Stuart Mill." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill n.d. Web.

Accessed 25th October 2023.