Utilitarianism (book)

Utilitarianism or utilitarianism (English original title Utilitarianism ) is called a 1861 first published text of the English philosopher John Stuart Mill ( 1806-1873 ). He herein explains his version of utilitarianism and defended it against accusations.

Genesis

The ethical position of utilitarianism had been since the late 18th century, developed and disseminated in particular by Jeremy Bentham, but also of his friend and John Stuart's father, James Mill. James Mill raised his only son privately and schottete him as a child of the same age from systematically in order to protect him from bad influences. John Stuart was so early on a versatile educated intellectuals who had particular dealt with the utilitarianism. His relationship with his father and also his philosophy remained biased psychologically complex. As a 14 - year old, he spent a year in France in Jeremy Bentham's brother, Samuel, and already wrote about the utilitarian works of Bentham and his father. After his studies, he wrote several essays in the 1830s, the critical grappled with the argument advanced by Bentham and his father variant of utilitarianism. After more focused in the following years to his theoretical philosophy and economics, he began in the mid 1850s to do more to deal with you again with political philosophy. In 1859 he published the text On Liberty, 1861 then the text Utlitarianism, first in Frasers Magazine, two years later as a book. The last chapter of the book was originally planned as an independent essay and was not incorporated until later in the work. Later editions were added only minor changes from Mill.

Content

The relatively short text is divided into five chapters. First, Mill presents his theory in the introduction in a general context of moral philosophical debate at all. In the second chapter he explains his understanding of utilitarianism, in the third and fourth chapters he goes to the question of final justification of moral philosophical systems in general and utilitarianism in particular, and in the last chapter he provides a link to the concept of justice here.

Introduction

The question of which the highest good ( summum bonum ) and which is the first principle ( first principle ) be the moral, exaggerating the philosophy since its origins. Mill claims that Plato already had same issue in a utilitarian position. Kant, however, the general law of reason have recognized as the first principle, but it was " almost grotesque" failed to derive real moral rules. Mill would like to explain and demonstrate, with evidence only in the sense would be possible to derive a controversial statement from a non-controversial statement, the utilitarian theory.

Exposition of utilitarianism

The basic theory of utilitarianism is the principle of the greatest happiness: An action is exactly correct if it promotes happiness, and wrong if it does the opposite. With luck, this was meant pleasure and the absence of pain. It was his theory of life ( theory of life), except that pleasure and freedom from pain is not desirable for themselves. If such a theory only pigs worthy think that put themselves in a bad light because he claimed that the people are not better quality sources of joy are accessible as pigs. In fact, it is entirely compatible with the utilitarianism that some sources of joy are more valuable than others. Mill offers a test to compare the value of two joys: If a person is ( mentally, physically ) able to experience two pleasures, and after having experienced both, one is the clear preference, then this pleasure is more valuable than the other. So 'll always shown that those pleasures are preferable, which are intellectually appealing. Since the condition for experiencing such joys are high intellectual capacity, it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. Here, it is important to note that people decide against the intellectual pleasure, because the physical pleasure is closer. These individuals but were then not - or no longer - to be competent appraiser ( competent judges ) on the necessary intellectual level.

The realization of happiness as a permanent state is impossible. However, there go the utilitarianism can be considered a quantitative and qualitative maximum possible happiness - this is also for every person an acceptable target. Utilitarianism would lead to a proliferation of education and knowledge, and also to an increase of about charity. Only had such goals in utilitarianism not even a good, but a necessary means for the propagation of happiness.

Mill discussed the allegation that it was too high a requirement to should always have in mind the overall social benefits in all actions. This is required in any moral theory and actually unrealistic. Nevertheless, such actions were correct, which are not made from a moral motivation, but still not lucky enough to at least reduce. The moral judgment of an action should depend on whether the person acting had an increase or decrease of happiness intends loud Mill.

To meet the utilitarian needs it was right to acquire virtues. This prevents the negligence in relation to moral action; insofar as it is a morally right action, to acquire virtues. It remains unclear at this point whether Mill is a whole be regarded as Aktutilitarist or Regelutilitarist.

A related criticism of moral overstrain of the individual is the practical excessive demands. It is not possible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the consequences of all actions and weighed against each other. Mill replied that mankind has had experience with the consequences of human activities since the beginning of their existence and can draw from this experience and knowledge. The appraisal of all impacts is only illustrative representation of the utilitarian requirement and does not need to run really detailed.

Motivation to utilitarian actions

The question of the basis of our commitment to act morally at Mill identical with the question which we are motivated to these actions. As in all other moral theories, the person acting in utilitarianism 'm powered by external and internal motivations. With external reasons the hope of recognition and praise and the fear of punishment is meant by other people or by God. In addition, this is one of our natural compassion for others. The internal motivation consists in a sense of duty. This, as Mill, derives from a very complex mix of experiences and feelings. Nevertheless, there is a natural commonality of all people: All people must have and understand themselves as part of a community through social feelings. Since people cooperate and act collectively must ( in order to get benefits ), they also identify their goals together. Through the formation of the community it is becoming increasingly common, keep track of the goals of others, and people take sometime quite naturally considerate of each other. Thus, by political progress, according to Mill duty to form a unit with the rest of mankind. This is being spread about by religion and education.

Evidence of the usefulness of the principle

A proof of a final destination in the sense of logical development is not possible, Mill On the contrary:

"The only proof Capable of being givenName did to object is visible, is Actually did people see it. [ ... ] In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce did anything is desireable, is did people Actually do desire it. "

The proof of utilitarianism could therefore only be that eventually all men desire their own happiness. Now people want but besides luck also for example virtues. However, this is also, according to Mills utilitarianism something worthwhile, because virtues indeed contribute to the common good. And finally there were few sources of happiness, if not things would be held to be desirable that contribute to happiness, or have a close connection to it. Only the luck but would really desired as such.

Utility and justice

Mill considered justice as a feeling or instinct that is exactly how instincts in animals in principle fallible. On the other hand, humanity rely on other matters in which no other evidence is available, on subjective feelings. The following aspects are, according to Mill part of our justice perception:

• Complying with the law, this intuition can at least unclear if the laws against other criteria of justice in violation
• The moral rights of every person to be not infringed by laws
• The distributive justice, according to which each person should get what it deserves
• The contract compliance and the rejection of exploiting of good faith
• The impartiality of the judicial system and the equality before the law

Under a compulsory Mill understands everything that can be demanded of man and his non-compliance is punished - whether by courts or only by disapproval of others. On the other hand there are also actions that we expect from others, but could not require them. Wrong we call those actions (or inactions of action ), of which we think that they should be punished. Mill distinguishes between perfect and imperfect duties: completely are those obligations that can be claimed by the acting the opposite. Imperfect duties can not be claimed by a particular person, but must be fulfilled only in some situations (such as donations). Justice now refers only to the perfect duties.

The sense of justice, as Mill, have two ingredients: the desire to punish the wicked, and the knowledge that someone ( unjustly ) were harmed. The desire for punishment arises from the impulse for self-defense and empathy. This desire for retribution is not in itself morally, but rather its use in the social structure, as will as serve the collective interest.

A right is for Mill just something in the violation of someone one is harmed, what the cause of the damage should be punished. Rights should be protected by the society as such the principle of utility will follow.

Is righteousness, Mill, a name for a class of social benefit effects, which take in the theory of utilitarianism, a high priority because of a just society grows a great benefit to all. He admits, however, that there may be better or even be necessary in certain situations to violate principles of justice - to steal about, so as to save a life. Then, however, was not of an unjust act, the speech, but the fact that it might be just in this particular case, to act as usual.