Criticism for Rule and Act Utilitarianism

Introduction

The attraction of utilitarianism is coherent and simpler compared to the miscellaneous set of moral rules ever taught. The concept of utility tries to answer whether it is wrong to break promises, lie or increase happiness. John Stuart Mill in his rule and act of utilitarianism consider that people need a great variety of things. For example, when a person wants to be virtuous, that is part of his happiness. Such a narrow view can be considered hedonist psychology, which shows that happiness what people both want and should want. Such explanations have serious problems because if someone wants something, it is not intuitively for them to pursue the want even if it is morally undesirable. Besides, there may be conflicts between people's happiness and my general happiness. Unless these conflicts can be elucidated, the psychosomatic derivation of the utilitarian morality would remain more challenging and problematic. Therefore, this paper seeks to criticize Mill's ethical theory of utilitarianism.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Mill states that good means desirable, and what is desirable can be found by first seeking what is desired. The psychological question is whether happiness is the only desirable characteristic. The fallacy in Mills view is that what is desirable may not be desired by some people. Therefore, Mill smuggled in the word desirable to mean what is actually desired and not what is good to desire. Does this also mean that bad desires are not possible. Mill mention the "better and nobler object of desire" (p. 10), to mean whatever may be desired is not ipso facto good to what needs to be desired. Besides, if whatever is desirable is ipso facto the good, then this is the primary motive of our actions as Mill puts it. This means that if his explanation of what is desirable is true, then he is wrong to say that the rule of action is based on the motive. Such contradictions are based on Mills naturalistic fallacy since there can be no confusion of the two.

The fact that Mill tried to establish the concept of hedonism is merely deceptive. He tried to create the identity of the good with the desirable. He confuses the primary meaning of desirable that means that which is good to desire. By identifying good to be identical with desirable, then they should have one meaning and sense and by identifying good to be identical to desired, then it should have a different meaning and sense. However, according to Mill, what is desired is necessary good yet the two concepts of desirable should mean the same. If he maintains that these two senses are similar, then he has contradicted himself but when he says they dissimilar, then his proof of hedonism is actually insignificant.

Mill acknowledges that pleasure is not the only thing desired by human beings. He maintains that the desire is not universal but a virtue and an authentic fact as the desire of happiness. Mill further says that in most cases, money is desirable. Such admissions contradict his argument that the only thing left to be desired is pleasure because it is the only thing desired. Although he tries to avoid such contradictions, he might have meant that money and virtue are only desired as part of happiness. According to Mill, happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. Is Mill trying to say that money that is desired is the absence of pain and part of pleasure? Does he mean that only money is always in our mind as piece of our pleasurable feelings? Mill further says that money is also desired for its sake and it must be as an end of itself. To patch things up, he maintains that what is a means to an end is also part of that end. By distinguishing between means and end, Mill has failed distinguish end based on what is desirable and what is desired.

Mill declares that "each person so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness" (p. 53). He describes this to give the reason why happiness is desirable. To regard this as such is part of his naturalistic fallacy and not part of Utilitarianism but rather egoism. Mill's argument is that a man desires his own happiness and this happiness is desirable. Besides, Mill states that a man desires nothing but his own happiness, and his own happiness alone is desirable. Thus, everyone based on Mills rule and act of utilitarianism, everybody desires his own happiness and also everyone happiness is alone desirable. This is merely a incongruity of terms.

Conclusion

Overall, John Stuart Mill in his rule and act of utilitarianism has had a number of critiques varying from logically, constructed and practically based concerns. Although he offers a critical technique for ethical rezoning, the principle of utility is more challenging to understand. Mill tries to use the hedonist psychology to prove the principle of utility. He maintains that happiness is not only a thing people need to have, but also what people should want. He also shows that the need for happiness validate the search for happiness. These two derivations have problems and bring conflicts between ones on happiness and people happiness in general. Unless Mill explains such conflicts away, the psychosomatic source of the utilitarian principles remains in trouble.

References

Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.