There are different theoretical approaches when it comes to ethics. In Kant’s Groundwork, we learned about the deontology theory of ethics. Deontology is a very dichotomous theory, where the main thing that matters is following one’s moral duty. If negativity comes from your action, it is okay as long as you follow your duty. Contrasting with this theory, there is the theory of consequentialism, which Mill follows in his book Utilitarianism. The main thing that matters with consequentialism is the outcome. Therefore, your intentions may not necessarily matter, just the end results. Both of these approaches to ethics are very contrasting. I would agree with Mill when he says that an action is done for the sake of some and result (Mill 6). Every human does things for the result that comes from said action. One may counteract this by stating, “Some people just do things for their own happiness.”
Though would not disagree, it should be noted that an end result could be solely happiness for some. Consequentialism is a theory that many follow despite being conscious of it as itjust comes to us naturally, whether we are being selfish or doing something for the end result of another. Throughout this short essay, it will be shown that Mill’s approach to ethics in Utilitarianism is something that is most applicable in a typical person’s every day life. In Mill’s Utilitarianism, one of his ideas is that you should always do an action for the greatest outcome. So, the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the best action you could possibly take. This is applicable when it comes to many decisions one makes on a daily basis.
For a more serious example, someone who wants to commit suicide is questioning what they should do. In their mind, they will think that it will end their pain and that is all that matters. Yes, this can remove one’s pain but this will also cause emotional turmoil for many others that this person has impacted in some way or another. Mill would say that the one person’s “lack of pain” or happiness is not enough in this situation when calculating an action’s sum total of happiness. Another example which is maybe more applicable is taking Advil when you have a headache. People do not really think about what exactly they are doing but they just automatically feel pain and do something to get rid of it. If you really think about it, why would somebody take Advil? To get rid of their headache, yes, to get rid of their pain. People do mindless things like this throughout their every day life and it is rarely analyzed but it is them following consequentialism.
127 our experts are availableright now
In contrary to Mill, Kant would feel differently about these things. Kant does not worry about one’s happiness. In fact, it is all about the right or wrong action to him. With Kant’s theory, it allows people to justify their actions. As long as you do something for your “duty”, it is okay. For instance, you could kill for your God, as long as that is your duty. Kant’s theory is a little too extreme especially for the 21st century. Often times, morality is related to one’s culture. Everybody embodies different morals and a lot of the time: it depends on their culture or religion. Therefore, a good thing about consequentialism is that it has broader acceptance and can vary.
If one ethical system were prominent in society, things would be different. Specifically, in utilitarianism, Mill is very big on justice as it is a part of utility. For him, justice is up to interpretation. Everybody can View this in his or her own ways, which is very applicable, especially in America in the 21“ century. Living in a country where everybody generally has human rights, this is convenient. He sets up five standards that are all very relevant to today’s time. His first one is that it is unjust to deprive anyone of their personal liberty, property. etcetera, is similar to something that we’d be able to relate to today. This would apply in a circumstance where somebody tries to take another’s life as that would be depriving somebody of their personal liberty. That would be to deprive somebody of their ability to live their life.
Another interesting one is his third one; that each person should obtain which he deserves. A lot of people follow the belief that one should get what they deserve and this is applicable here. If somebody is mean, they deserve meanness in return. This applies in all cases even more serious ones such as the death penalty. Mill’s exception is that punishment that exceeds what is necessary to keep the wrong action from happening again is unjust. Therefore, if somebody stabs someone, it would not be just for them to get the death penalty. Mill does not support the death penalty. But for certain circumstances, it would apply. Another one of his ideas is that it is unjust to break faith with anybody.
This would apply in cases of marriage where perhaps adultery is committed. One would View adultery to be unjust for the fact that you are breaking a promise to your significant other. There are many other ways where just these few ideas could be applied to somebody’s life. Mill goes into great detail on how utility works even if we do not believe it to, as we do these things without even recognizing that we are following utilitarianism. I think utilitarianism and consequentialism are both things that are most applicable to those who are living their lives currently.
