Mill

The Utilitarian theory basic principle is that an action can be regarded as right up to the point where maximization of general utility is achieved, and Mill identifies it with happiness (Michael et. al 2014). Utilitarianism was devised to serve as a plan for acting politically. This theory tells someone what they should do and it should be about what brings about greatest pleasure for everyone. Since it is impossible for us to predict the future, it does not requires certain knowledge. In fact, such knowledge is not possible since the consequences are normally in the unseen future. Instead of having knowledge, we need to only make our best estimates of any consequences. If the results of a decision made are unclear, it make sense when one follows a rule that is ethical and which has led to the most utility in the past. The actions should be aimed at achieving the overall happiness of individuals, but since the future is unknown and unpredictable, a certain knowledge would not be necessary in identifying actions that would result to happiness for everyone. This is because people may react differently towards different actions. Also people may try to seek their interests and find themselves into situations where the consequences of their actions are completely unclear (Sandel, 2011).

Mill’s basic principle is that actions are always right as long as they their intention is to provide happiness for all human. Thus utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of various actions but not on someone’s rights nor ethical attitudes. Actions are thus regarded as right if they result in the happiness of all humans but wrong if they lead to the reverse of this happiness. Mill outlines that it would be right to remove men whose actions lead to no good for anyone , or subject them to cruel, moral suffering and whose influence lead to increased suffering or unhappiness. So if a man who causes happiness was to be enslaved, the resulting consequences would be in favour of this act. But this does not mean that a person should be enslaved in order for others to achieve happiness. Rather the consequences of enslaving a small group that causes unhappiness to a mass would justify the action, even though it would be painful for the small group. This is seen in Mills difference from other theorists and does not appeal for abstract right so that to give justification for harm principle. For such a group to enjoy freedom, they must ensure that they cause little to harm to the community and this would promote utility on the basis of permanent interest of human beings progression (Sandel, 2011). Thus Utilitarianism does not actually advocate for the enslavement per se, but the consequences that would arise from that would result from the action. Thus, enslavement is immoral to the extent that the concerned group does not at all cause unhappiness to the larger group of people. The morality of any action is dependent on the consequences of that result from the action. The enslaving the small group would result to a larger group experiencing happiness, so the utilitarian theory cannot fully reject enslavement as being immoral. If the utilitarian calculus were to be adhered to strictly, the resulting suffering, whether intense or not, of the small group would be overshadowed by the happiness achieved by the larger group (Michael et. al 2014). At this point, utilitarianism seems to be endorsing slavery when it leads to the lot of happiness for the majority of people.  

In practice people normally do not have an assessment of the results of every act they undertake since they do not have much time or have a lot to do. If each person was to endorse the consequentialism act, it may lead to negative results for the general society since it would not be easy to predict what decisions other people would make. Since predicting other peoples’ moral decisions is difficult, it would also be difficult to foresee what their behaviour will be. To a great extent the problem of knowing about the future makes it hard to rely on utilitarian as a satisfactory ethical theory. Moreover, it would result to a lot of mistrust in the society since there exist the fear of bias and prejudice towards once family or close groups would have a strong effect on the moral decisions (Deigh, 2010). The best that can be done is to use the past act to predict the possibility of specific consequences. The problem of justifying slavery seems not compatible with justice since it implies that in some situations, people can be treated unfairly while violating their moral rights. Oppression and slavery are obviously very wrong regardless of how much pleasure the oppressing class may derive from such vices. Indeed when someone happiness is dependent on the on the sufferings of someone else, this becomes even more detestable (Michael et. al 2014). This means that Utilitarian cannot be relied upon to act as an ethical theory that is satisfactory.

 

References

Michael C. Braswell, Belinda R. McCarthy, Bernard J. McCarthy (2014). Justice, Crime, and Ethics. Routledge.20-21

Deigh, J. (2010). An introduction to ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.112-113

Sandel, M. (2011).J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863). Harvard University’s Justice. Retrieved from: http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/j-s-mill-utilitarianism-1863/