Introduction to Ethics
Mill argument
Mill present proof of the principle of utility by defending the claim that happiness is the only value. There are two stages to this proof; the argument that happiness is good and the argument that happiness is the only thing that is good. According to Mill, virtue can be an end to human action apart from happiness. Similar to his opponents’ arguments, he asserts that there are human beings who desire acts according to virtue and lack thereof vice as an alternative to pleasure and the nonexistence of pain. The theory of Utilitarian claims that there are a human being who truly holds virtue with high esteem as the only criteria of wrong and right. As a consequence, it is rational to argue that, happiness is not the only first principle upon which right and wrong should be based (West 13).
According to Mill, one cannot strictly provide evidence indicating whether or not something is good or wrong. It is not something that can be deduced from other premises. The first stage of Mill’s argument entails the premise that happiness is good. According to the first principle of any area of knowledge, the claim of ultimate good is the first principle in ethics. This is because the claim cannot be deduced from other premises. Regardless, a reasonable argument on what is good can be formulated. Mill considers what is good to be an end: the purpose. One should always aim at what is good through their actions and lives. As such, what is good should be the purpose of our actions. Actions are understood regarding means and ends. While end entails to the reason as to why people do what they do, means involves the methods and how people achieve their actions and desires (West 23). According to Mill, one should aim at what is desirable. In his argument, he asserts that happiness is desirable.
There are three parts to Mill’s argument about happiness being good. The only evidence that can be assigned to the claim that an object is visible is that people are capable of seeing the object. Similarly, the only evidence that something is desirable is that populace does, in fact, desire it. There is no reason that can be assigned as to why the overall happiness is desirable apart from the fact that each and every person desires his or her happiness. As a consequence, happiness is good; therefore, each person's happiness is good. This only means that the overall happiness is good to the cumulative of all people.
Mill presents another argument that only happiness is good. His claim that happiness is good is comparatively uncontroversial. What is controversial is the claim that happiness is the only good. This argument asserts that everything that is normally considered to be good, such as beauty, truth and freedom, derives their value from happiness.
Those opposed to Mill’s argument on happiness as desirable and good presents various objections to this argument. Moore’s objected that Mill utilized the equivocation fallacy in his argument to proof that happiness is good and desirable. Moore argues that there are two meanings to the word “desirable’; the normal meaning is worthy of being desired while the other meaning entails to capable of being desirable. According to the first meaning of desirable, Mill’s argument suffices; anything desirable in the sense of its worth is good. On the other hand, determining what is capable of being desired requires one to look at what the general population desire. Mill’s argument presents a connection between what is desirable and what the population desire. However, what the populace desire is not the same as what is worthy of being desired. Therefore, what people desire may not be the same as what is good: something worthy of being desired by people (West 33). According to Moore, Mill’s argument assumed that what the populace desire just is what is good. He notes that Mill did not identify that there are different meanings of desirable. This objection misinterprets Mill's argument on happiness. According to Mill, the general populace desires happiness. They all desire what is worthy of desire. There is nothing that anybody wants that is not worth wanting. Everybody always wants something that is worth wanting. Therefore, it is rational to assert that happiness is desirable and, therefore, good.
Apart from Moore, other philosophers have objected that Mill’s argument is made up of a fallacy of composition in his third part. According to them, Mill seems to be arguing that; because each and every person desires their happiness, it means that everybody else desires the happiness to everybody. Similar to Moore's objection, this object thrives on a misinterpretation of Mill's argument. Mill does not feel the necessity defend the concept of impartiality in ethics. He plainly makes the assumption that ethics is all about what is good in general. In his argument, he does not infer that one ought to be concerned for the happiness of others. His argument that happiness is good follows that one should be concerned with general happiness following his assumption that ethics is impartial.
Works Cited
West, Henry, ed. The Blackwell guide to Mill's utilitarianism. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
