Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

I. Summary of Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

“Utilitarianism”, by John Stuart Mill, is an essay written to provide support for the value of utilitarianism as a moral theory, and to respond to misconceptions about it.

Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that pleasures that are rooted in one's higher faculties (intellectual, moral and aesthetic faculties) should be weighted more heavily than pleasures of lower qualities (i.e. animal pleasures). Furthermore, Mill argues that people's achievement of goals and ends, such as virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. Mill further argues that utilitarianism coincides with "natural" sentiments that originate from humans' social nature. Therefore, if society were to embrace utilitarianism as an ethic, people would naturally internalize these standards as morally binding. Mill argues that happiness is the sole basis of morality, and that people never desire anything but happiness. He supports this claim by showing that all the other objects of people's desire are either means to happiness, or included in the definition of happiness. Mill explains at length that the sentiment of justice is actually based on utility, and that rights exist only because they are necessary for human happiness.

II. Use of the Utilitarian Theory in Ethical Decision Making Process

From the perspective of the organizations, the utilitarian theory is the most frequently advocated theories. It is in fact the philosophical basis for our contemporary notion of democracy as well as the underpinning for microeconomic theory. The local utilitarian view can be considered from local and cosmopolitan organizational perspectives. The local utilitarian view is oriented toward the greatest good for the firm, whereas the cosmopolitan view would encompass a broader perspective that extends beyond the firm (i.e. greatest good for the society at-large).

This theory does provide an objective method for choosing among ends. Initially termed as “hedonistic calculus,” its contemporary terminology is the rational decision making process.

This process involves: identification of the problem, the generation of alternatives, the quantitative evaluation of the alternatives, the selection and implementation of the ‘best’ alternative, and the evaluation of the performance of this decision. While this process has proved to be an efficient method of resolving many organizational dilemmas, it is often found to be lacking when ethical dilemmas are considered. The impact of utilitarian decisions upon the individual or minority presents a further problem. If the greatest good for the greatest number results in the obfuscation or outright denial of individual rights, then the use of utilitarianism as an exclusive theoretical outlook may not be acceptable to those whose rights are being denied.


III. References:
William F. Lawhead, Philosophical Questions (Classic and Contemporary
Readings), 1st Edition, McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2003.

David Lyons, Rights, Welfare and Mill’s Moral Theory, Oxford University
Press, 1994.

James Agarwal & David Cruise Malloy, “The role of existentialism in ethical
business decision-making,” Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol.
9, Number 3, July 2000.