The ethical theory composed by John Stuart Mill betwee1806 – 1873 is described to be most extensive expressed within his well-known work of Utilitarianism. Its purpose to justify the principle of Utilitarianism as the groundwork of morals. The law indicates that the actions are right in percentage or proportion as they improve or promote total human happiness. Therefore, Mill puts the focus on the consequences of actions but not on the rights or even ethical sentiments. Indeed, the work of Mill examines the fundamental ideas of the text Utilitarianism. Still, the concluding two parts are devoted to author’s opinions on the freedom of the will and also the justification of the punishment. Throughout the writing of this work, Mill tried to borrow ideas from the other articles, which had contributed a lot in developing utilitarian thought. One of the articles was known as “Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy,” which was substantially rejected by Mill. The Bentham article has the view that human beings are remorselessly driven by shallow self – esteem. It contradicted with what Mill believed since his view was that “desire for perfection” and compassion for fellow humanity is owned by human nature (Cohen-Almagor, 436 – 439). Among the central doctrines of the political and philosophical works of Mill is that not only the social rules to be responsible, individuals should also of having the inside urge to improve. Therefore, the paper will be focusing on the issues of behaviors, either ethical or unethical. Besides, there will be an assessment of how these actions relate to value obtained
To produce an argument on Mill’s conception of ethical judgment or justice, there is a need to capture the ideas of other philosophers concerning the same. From the early essays “Bentham” (1838), all sensible theories have the assumption that “the molarity of the behaviors or actions is dependent on the consequences or the results they tend to produce,.” Therefore, the variation between the moral model lies on the axiological plane. On the other hand, Mill’s model of morality in Utilitarianism is founded on a specific theory of life. In this model or theory of life, the parameters being focused on are pleasures and the freedom from pain, which are desirable end attributes. That kind of approach of life is mostly known as hedonistic it can be noted that Mill has already received the own position of hedonistic (Hollander 1787-1803). According to Mill, the aspect which makes Utilitarianism odd is its hedonistic model of the good. In fact, by definition, Utilitarian are hedonists. It is through this reason that Mills sees no need for differentiating between the hedonistic aspect and utilitarian within his model theory.
In Mill’s theory of value and the principle of utility, Utilitarianism is defined as the creed, which takes into consideration the “theory of life “as the ground of ethics and morals. According to the Mill, the theory of life is monistic which means that there is one and only thing which is essentially desirable known as pleasure. In the contrast to the form of hedonism which conceives pleasure as the standardized matter, Mill believed that pleasures are valued differently. Due to this factor, the position taken by Mill is referred to as “qualitative hedonism,” which is not widely accepted by several factors. Indeed several philosophers hold that the qualitative hedonism has no consistent position, and the conclusion is that it is not well established (Schwartz 118 -121). According to the philosophers who reject the Mill’s perception of Hedonism, they hold that Hedonism declares that pleasure is the only intrinsic or fundamental value. Within this assumption, the critics argue that there is no defined evaluation basis to distinguish between the lower and higher pleasures. Their stand is that value is experienced despite any amount of pleasure generated either high or low.
The aspect which rises from the different qualities of pleasure can be described more according to Mill’s perception. Mill declares suggests that the higher profile valuable pleasures are those who employ the “higher faculties.” In the list of higher-profile, parameters such enjoyment pleasures such as intelligence, imaginations, and feelings, and ethical sentiments are captured. These kind of enjoyments makes people to be of highly established capacities for example empathy and judgement. In one of the most ideas of Mill about satisfaction, the perception is that it is better to be a dissatisfied intellect than be a satisfied fool. Th idea appears to be surprisingly for a hedonist thinker.
Nevertheless, Mill have this thought that people till have robust empirical basis of that the perception of hedonist. According to Mill, the appropriate attainable evidence for the value is inclusive of people judgement. In this judgment, valuable varies across according to the cases and the culture involved. The empirical assertion made by Mill is that all or almost all individuals prefer the “manner or method of existence,” which considers higher profile faculties than those of lower profile. The phrase “all or almost all” means that those who are conversant with pleasures will prefer to have it at a higher profile than a low profile. It is an experimental proof for the claim that people are highly attracted with higher profile values. Consequently, the most extraordinary human life that is “method or manner of existence” is the one which plays a significant part when it comes to achieving higher faculties. It is an aspect which partially explains why Mill emphasized on understanding the concept of theory of value in connection with satisfaction.
In another Mill’s theory of morality as the system of social rules, the concept of Utilitarianism is of rare importance when it comes to moral obligation. It is noted that at the beginning, Mill hypothesizes that the moral judgements believed in the judging rules (Kuenzle and Lisa 216 – 222). On the contrast to Kant, he grounds the ethical or moral theory on the self – obligatory rules known as maxims. Besides, Mill has another extra perception that morality is developed through the use of social norms. It seems that the impression is confusing, which raises a question of what makes social rules to become moral rules. According to Mill, the answer to that concern is developed through a thesis of defining clearly what is “morally or ethically right” and what is “morally or ethically wrong.” The perception in this idea is that type of action is named ethically wrong if the thought is endorsed either by external sanctions or internal sanctions. That aspect defines the critical variation between “simple expediency and morality.” Unethical or inexpedient actions have no ground of being recommended by a person, for example, an action that could lead to harming oneself or the other person. But in contrast to immoral acts, the inappropriate actions are unworthy to be subjected to sanction.
On the issue of various ranges of action, Mill uses the system of logic through nominating prudence, molarity, and aesthetics as the component of Art of life. It is the opinion of utility which governs morality and its taste. Furthermore, it is not classified as a moral principle, but the meta – the principle of the practical reason of how the system of life defines ethics. However, there is another perspective of defining moral rules. There are those fields of action in which sanctions of unethical behavior would not be appropriate. Among those actions are self – regarding actions which dwell on Liberty. Within this context of a private range of actions, people can act at their convenience (Brewis 524-527). Under the rage of convenience, people may involve themselves in inappropriate and undesirable behavior as long as they are not harming other individuals.
The concept of value is strongly connected with that of ethics or moral, and in many scenarios, they are inseparable. However, the two ideas seem to take varied formulations from the utilitarian point of perception. The first formulation is the act of utilitarian, which defines the value obtained through engaging in a certain action. The opinion in the act of utilitarian is that even if ethics is to be considered in actions, then the value or satisfaction obtained should be parallel. It is note that there is no need for being a satisfied fool but rather be a dissatisfied intellect. The value of satisfaction of action is not necessarily assessed from the ethical perspective of it. The second formulation of utilitarian is that of the rule being taken. In this concept, the rule of judging in connection with ethics is assessed. However, these rules do not interfere with “unethical actions” if they only do not impede the moral perceptions of other people. However, this issue needs to be discussed more due to its contradiction of on moral or ethic definitions