The principle of utility is also the greatest happiness principle. This principle justifies actions in reference to their ability to result in happiness. A right action results in happiness. A wrong action on the other hand results in sadness. Happiness in this context is a feeling of pleasure. It also means the absence of pain in an individual. Sadness on the hand results in unhappiness, pain, and lack of pleasure in an individual. This principle describes what is right and wrong in reference to the actions of an individual. The principle explains that right actions result in happiness among people while bad action results in sadness among people. The principle justifies actions in reference to how much happiness they can produce among people. However, there are three concepts that matter. First is the description of happiness. The next is about whose happiness matters (Peterson, 136). This factor looks at whose happiness individuals have to consider while performing their actions. The third looks at how much happiness people should pursue. It looks at whether people should focus on increasing happiness or maximizing happiness in their lives. Mill answers these questions by explaining that individuals have to consider the happiness of all people. The issue of happiness revolves around both the individual and the people around the individual. A person therefore has to find a way of ensuring happiness not only for himself but also for the people around him.
The principle of utility is the first principle of morality because it creates the foundation of morality. The criterion decides what is right or wrong. This is the ultimate standard hence the first principle of morality. There is a necessity for the first principle because it is the initial foundation of morality. Morality is a practical art hence it requires a first principle. The first principle has the duty of telling us how things should be in our lives. It does not describe how things were or how they will be in future. It only provides a guideline on how things should be in our lives. It explains that happiness is the biggest of people’s needs.
Direct normative utilitarianism describes that in relation to morality, an individual has to identify the actions that are most relevant in a situation. The next step involves determining the action that provides the highest level of happiness. The third step is performing the most suitable act. Indirect normative utilitarianism on the other hand dictates that the actions an individual takes have to conform to certain sets of moral rules. An individual has to take time to select the most relevant actions (Penman, 248). The action has to be correct as per the secondary rules of the specific community. The most appropriate actions are those that lead to a high amount of happiness among people. An individual has the power t select the set of rules to adopt. This set of rules should be the most vital in providing happiness in the society. In case there is a different set of rules that can lead to a higher amount of happiness then the individual has to follow that set of rules. Happiness is the basis that guides the individual’s actions. It also determines the best kind of secondary rules to follow. The rules people follow should be those that help produce the highest amount of aggregate happiness in their lives.
George the chemist has the moral dilemma of taking a job in an environment that involves biological and chemical warfare. He has a PhD in chemistry. The moral dilemma is that if he does not take the job then someone else will. He understands that he needs a job because there are not many jobs out there. In a way, he has no choice. However, he is aware that his contributions to that specific industry might end up harming certain individuals. The utilitarian rule in this case means that George the chemist should take the job. This makes it easier for him and his wife. He has the skills and he will have a job. This leads to stability, which in turn leads to happiness in his life. Thus, this action leads to happiness and he should follow it.
The case of George the chemist shows utilitarianism describes the kind of consideration that people require in their actions. It means that we are responsible for our actions rather than what other people do. Utilitarianism provides a correct guide to action because it guides their actions. However, it has some negative factors in that deprive people of their integrity. Secondly, it also separates the actions of an individual from his ultimate “Projects”. It guides our actions. It does not guide the actions that we make other people do (Williams, 115). At times, what we feel and think does not apply in real life.
The examples undermine the principles of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has an extreme notion, which just focuses on the consequences of our actions. There is a problem in that it does not offer its agents integrity and on the other hand, it does not involve the individual’s projects in part of his actions. In the example given, George has an emotional dilemma in that he really needs the job and his wife has nothing against this kind of research. In this example utilitarianism, guides gorge the chemist to accept the job. This is despite the effect that this kind of research would have in the environment around him. Utilitarianism does not have consideration for other people. There is no concept of integrity. The example thus undermines the concept of utilitarianism.
An indirect normative utilitarian who still thinks that utilitarianism is the point of morality justifying action in accordance to a rule and knows that if he made an exception this would lead to a higher amount of happiness has to make the exception. In the end, the individual has to look at which action results to the highest amount of aggregate happiness not only to him but also to his community. This calls for the adoption of an alternative set of rules. In the end, the utilitarianism rule focuses in creating a world, which has the highest amount of happiness. Mill accepts that individuals do not have to follow the secondary rules constantly but should do their best to follow it. This concept means that individuals not have to apply the principle of utilitarianism in every single moment. The principle does not command happiness but rather explains to people that happiness is one of the most desirable features that most people wish they had in their lives. The theory revolves around what is most desirable to people.
Works Cited
Peterson, Rialto. Demands of Morality: Philosophy and Modern Affairs, v. 13(1984) 134-171
Penman, Louis. Ethical Theory, Classical and Contemporary Readings, Belmont: Wadsworth, 2007 245-254
Williams, Bernard. Utilitarianism, For and Against, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 112-116
