Analysis of Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

Mill's Utilitarianism seems to follow one extremely simple idea, one which can become incredibly complex when argued correctly: the idea that the right action is the one which supplies the greatest amount of good over the greatest number of people. This is an idea I can support, who couldn't? It is certainly a good idea in theory, but in practice, much like many other ethical codes, it has its flaws. For utility to work, everyone would have to again have strictly good intentions, and would have to have a desire to supply this good to the greatest amount of people. Much like Kant's, it doesn't have room for those which are of purely evil intentions.

Related to this idea, another flaw I see with utility is that different people have differing definitions of what is considered happiness, or what makes them happy. How can one person expect to supply the greatest amount of good when good means something completely different to someone else (note the connection this has to MacIntyre's description of emotivism much earlier on). Mill seems to have a counterargument to this idea, saying that "Even if happiness is unattainable, acting to decrease suffering would be worthwhile. Continual pleasurable excitement is impossible, but a broader kind of happiness is possible," an idea I also support as surely any effort toward the greatest good and supplying happiness, any result as slim as it may be would be better than nothing.

Other than these flaws, I believe I can stand behind Utilitarianism. I don't know how effective it would be in practical application, but in theory it seems as if it could work. There is one aspect of Mill's arguing that leaves me conflicted however, and it's the idea that utility needs to be taught at an early age, constantly. This is another point that can be drawn to MacIntyre's introduction, the idea that philosophy needs to be constantly practiced for it to be refined and hopefully advanced over time. I believe utility can be taught at a young age (along with every other philosophical idea, I believe it's up for the children to decide for themselves what system of ethics they support), but I don't believe in it as much as Mill seems to. The way he suggests utility being taught seems very close to propaganda, saying that it needs to be constantly reinforced and that this is the only true ethical system. It's natural for Mill to believe in what he has said and to believe that his ideas are correct, but I think he needs to realize that every other philosopher out there who creates their own set of ethics will argue the same thing for themselves. The only person who can decide which set of ethics holds the truest for them is the reader, a decision which can only be made accurately if every set of ethics is taught equally to whoever wants to learn them. I also made a strange connection between Mill and Kant through one of their ideas. It seems they both take value in the end result of an action, regardless of the motive behind it, or at least that's what I'm getting out of this reading. I know in class we discussed that Kant and Mill are almost opposites, and in the reading I can see how they are completely contradictory of each other, but I thought this was a pretty major idea that I can see in both of their arguments.

Source: Utilitarianism and the 1868 Speech on Capital Punishment, Second Edition. Written by John Stuart Mill.