And That's What Makes You Beautiful...

On Wednesday, Dr. J told us the first four ways that people misunderstand Utilitarianism, but she left us with just the first statement and not John Stuart Mill’s argument against that. The fifth misconception stated, “People object to Utilitarianism because they say the most virtuous people in history have renounced happiness.” She also asked us to think about what that means and why John Stuart Mill would argue with that. The way I would rephrase that meaning would be that, “People object to doing something useful for the greatest amount of good, because the most renowned morally good people have abandoned their happiness.” So, why would John Stuart Mill have a problem with that?

I’m going to talk about Mill for a brief moment. He is all about Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is all about doing something useful for the greatest amount of good is a morally good action. He describes a morally good action as something that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people.

For an example of an argument he could have against it, I’m going to use Gandhi. Gandhi was a peaceful man who believed in the good in people. Some would also say that Gandhi was a generally happy man. Well, I can see an argument that could be used against that. One could say that maybe Gandhi lost sense of his own happiness because he was too focused on making others happy. But on the other hand, one could say that Gandhi was a morally good man who was happy with himself because his happiness came from the joy he brought to others. I believe Mill would side with the latter. Mill could see Gandhi as man who made morally good actions by bringing happiness and wisdom to people. Gandhi was doing something not only useful for the people, but also for himself. He was passionate about what he taught. He was fulfilling his needs to do something worthwhile.

Overall, that’s just what I personally think. I could be wrong, but we shall all find out tomorrow.