{"id":295,"date":"2020-12-09T20:36:43","date_gmt":"2020-12-09T20:36:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/?p=295"},"modified":"2020-12-10T13:16:54","modified_gmt":"2020-12-10T13:16:54","slug":"personal-happiness-vs-the-greater-good","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/2020\/12\/09\/personal-happiness-vs-the-greater-good\/","title":{"rendered":"Personal Happiness vs. the Greater Good"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Mill and Utilitarianism<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses on the outcomes and consequences of our actions, rather than the intention of our actions or the actions themselves. In this ideology, the morality of actions should be measured in terms of the maximization of pleasure for the greatest number of people. Jeremy Bentham, a prominent utilitarian states, \u201cWe should act always so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number.\u201d The implications of Utilitarianism are that we must always do something that makes things better, even if it means doing something wrong or getting your hands dirty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mill specifically defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. He also states that everyone\u2019s happiness matters equally. Mill says that all action is for some end, and that should be increasing net happiness. He claims that some pleasures are intrinsically more valuable than others. He says you can compare pleasures by whether you would choose one over another even if it is accompanied by slight discomfort. Mill is a subjective consequentialist, which means that you need to individually evaluate every situation, and while there is a primary set of rules a society, but there are always going to be secondary evaluations needed to make a decision. This means that while there are a general set of rules one should abide by, every situation is different and you may not act the same in every scenario. This is why he is a subjective<\/em> consequentialist. Sometimes, in order to make the decision that increases net happiness, you will have to do things differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mother vs. Half-sister<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The situation<\/a> is that the poster has a half sister from her father\u2019s affair. Her mother and father are divorced and the poster just met the half sister who is incredibly excited to form relationships and even wants to meet the poster\u2019s mother who does not wish to meet her. Now the poster\u2019s wedding is approaching she is considering not inviting her half sister as her mother still does not want to meet her<\/em>. 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mill states that \u201cthe creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.\u201d (Mill 1861: 186). Mill is a subjective consequentialist, meaning that what matters is whether or not an action produces happiness or prevents unhappiness and \u201cby happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain by unhappiness pain and the privation of pleasure.\u201d (Mill 1861: 186). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, what has to be considered is: would not inviting the half sister maximize happiness? If she does not invite her half sister then she would likely be upset to not have been invited, but if she does her mother will be upset. While either course will end with some degree of unhappiness, the right action is whatever produces the least unhappiness. Due to the fact that the poster and her mother doubtless have a stronger connection than that with the half-sister she has just met, choosing to not invite the half sister would likely maximize happiness. This is due to the fact that this would make the mother happier and therefore would likely make the poster happier as well as the fact that the half sister does not know her that well and therefore will likely not be that hurt. Mill would state the moral action is to not invite the half sister so as to maximize happiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Happiness for one or for all?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

OP has a house that has gone up in value that she intends to give to her daughter, as it is her daughter\u2019s childhood home. Her daughter is a hairdresser, and can either keep the house to live in and not worry about buying a house, or sell it and use the money to support herself. OP\u2019s fiance has two children of his own, and says she should give the house to all three children, as the money could be split to help them pay for expenses like college. OP wants to know if she\u2019s the asshole for wanting to give her daughter the house, and not splitting it.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately for OP, Mill would say that it would be the most moral decision to give the house to all three kids, not only her daughter. For Mill, the greatest good for the greatest number must be considered, in terms of what option produces the most happiness for the most amount of people. Everyone\u2019s happiness matters equally, so even though OP may be closer to her daughter, her fiance and his children\u2019s feelings are equally as important. If what matters is how much good is produced overall, the decision that would make more people happy would be to split the house between the three children because it would make the fiance and his two children happier, even if it means OP and her daughter will be less happy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mill and Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses on the outcomes and consequences of our actions, rather than the intention of our actions or the actions themselves. In this ideology, the morality of actions should be measured in terms of the maximization of pleasure for the greatest number of people. Jeremy Bentham, a … Continue reading Personal Happiness vs. the Greater Good<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1596,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1596"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=295"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":308,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295\/revisions\/308"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}