Greatest Happiness Principle Research Articles

Happiness and Individual

The term ‘Happiness’ is considered as an emotional state which is characterized by feelings of joy, satisfaction, contentment and fulfillment. According to Aristotle happiness comes in achieving all the goods regarding health, wealth, knowledge etc which leads to the perfection of human nature and to the enrichment of human life through the period of a whole lifetime. In this present paper, basically I shall attempt to concentrate on Mill’s concept of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is regarded as the Greatest Happiness Principle. It is one of the important theories of ethics. This theory emphasizes the greatest happiness of the greatest number as the ethical standard. According to this theory, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness (absence of pain) and wrong if it ends in unhappiness (pain). It was Jeremy Bentham, who did most to systematize utilitarianism. Bentham’s disciple, J. S. Mill, was the next great utilitarian. This paper consists of three sections. The first section contains Mill’s view on individual liberty. In the second section, I have discussed Millian concept of utilitarianism in general and finally I conclude my discussion by raising the question whether Millian view of utilitarianism can ultimately be maintained consistently with his concept of individual liberty.

Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality

Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality

A Public Health Reset Through Contractualism

A Public Health Reset Through Contractualism

ALTRUISM AND MORAL ENHANCEMENT

ABSTRACT In this article I will be discussing what altruism is, distinguishing altruistic motivations (pure and impure) and altruistic behaviour (soft and robust). Pure altruism is when the motivation to benefit another is exclusively to increase the other's welfare, and impure altruism is when the motivation to benefit another is solely to increase your own wellbeing, or includes on some level, increasing your own welfare. Soft altruism is helping behaviour and robust altruism is improving the welfare of another individual at the expense of the altruist. Having made these distinctions I move on to show that altruism is a requirement of morality. I argue that the three main principles of morality (categorical imperative, golden rule and the greatest happiness principle) are not only compatible with, but also recommend soft altruism. Finally I argue that the probability of people continuing to practise altruistic acts is higher when we are purely motivated, and if that is the case not only classic moral enhancement but also biotechnological moral enhancement can have a role in bringing people over to the altruistic side, stimulating their ‘other regarding ’ motivations, thus contributing to spreading altruistic behaviour and morality throughout the world.

John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle and Free Speech: Expanding the Notion of Harm

AbstractThis article advocates employing John Stuart Mill's harm principle to set the boundary for unregulated free speech, and his Greatest Happiness Principle to regulate speech outside that boundary because it threatens unconsented-to harm. Supplementing the harm principle with an offense principle is unnecessary and undesirable if our conception of harm integrates recent empirical evidence unavailable to Mill. For example, current research uncovers the tangible harms individuals suffer directly from bigoted speech, as well as the indirect harms generated by the systemic oppression and epistemic injustice that bigoted speech constructs and reinforces. Using Mill's ethical framework with an updated notion of harm, we can conclude that social coercion is not justified to restrict any harmless speech, no matter how offensive. Yet certain forms of speech, such as bigoted insults, are both harmful and fail to express a genuine opinion, and so do not deserve free speech protection.

Charaka’s normative theories of ethics insight from ayurveda

Introduction: Ayurveda is a life science, hence put forth maximum stress on health and its maintenance. Sadavrutta (code of good conduct) has a major capacity in maintaining good health, as it contain the set of rule to be followed by person for maintenance of health. Charaka stated that aarogya (health) and indriyavijay (control over the sense organ) can be achieved by adapting sadavritta in routine life. Similarly to achieve the health, Charaka explain various normative theories of ethics, unfortunately non highlighted till now. Objectives: Objectives are to put forth the Charaka’s the normative theories of ethics and to highlighten the importance of Charka’s normative theories, as existing other traditional theories of ethics. Materials and Methods: Classical texts of Ayurveda viz. bruhatrayee and laghutrayee were studied for literature regarding ethics from Ayurveda, ethical theories from modern science was also collected. Conclusion: Charaka’s theory of dharma (virtue), harsha (contentment), karma (obligations), sadvritta (social conduct), vyavasaay (professional conduct), aacharana (high value care) all these theories of ethics explain moral and ethics about living life up to quite high level as theory of virtue, greatest happiness principle, Kant’s principle, ethics of care exist in modern science. These Charaka’s theories have importance as good as traditional theories of ethics existing at that time in modern science. Keywords: Ayurveda, Ethics, Sadavrutta , normative theory, Dharma , Harsha.

소극적 공리주의와 사회적 약자 보호 : 법이념에 관한 시론(試論)

If we work on the premise that law is “the reality the meaning of which is to serve the legal value, the idea of law” (Gustav Radbruch), then we could say that the idea of law (Rechtsidee) may only be justice (Gerechtigkeit). And the essence of justice is nothing but equality (Gleichheit). Justice calls for treating equal things equally and unequal things unequally. But justice, as Radbruch has said, “leaves open the two questions, whom to consider equal or different, and how to treat them.” To answer this questions, justice should be thus complemented by another idea of law, utility or purposiveness (Zweckmasigkeit). However, due to different views of the state, there is no general agreement on the question of what the final aim of law is. In the debate about the purpose of law, ethical theories compete with one another, and one of the most preferred ethical theories in this field is utilitarianism which tries to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The Principle of Greatest-Happiness meets our right intuition and can be easily put into practice. It can also be harmonized not only with individualism, but also with communitarianism, because it treats all individuals equally on the one hand, and attempts to maximize the happiness of the community on the other hand. Despite this, utilitarianism can hardly be the guiding principle of law, for the following reasons: The Greatest-Happiness Principle cannot be applied universally, since the meaning of happiness varies from person to person. And utilitarianism focuses only on maximizing utility of society and pays no attention to the question of how the optimized utility should be shared within society. As a result, utilitarianism tends to ignore minorities; it tends to forget the fact that the happiness of majorities are often achieved at the cost of the suffering of minorities. If, on the other hand, we recast classical utilitarianism as an ethical theory that aims not at increasing happiness, but at reducing suffering, utilitarianism (negative utilitarianism) could serve as a guiding principle of law. Reducing suffering could be a universal purpose of law, since suffering is easier recognized than happiness and, as Popper stated, “human suffering makes a direct moral appeal, namely, the appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway.” Negative Utilitarianism is mainly concerned about minorities who are in trouble, so that it is naturally able to fulfill Rawls’ Principles of Justice, especially the difference principle which says that social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons.

Utilitarianism and the idea of university: A short ethical analysis

The standard objection to the utilitarian vision of morality is that utilitarian so-called ?Greatest-Happiness Principle? could justify counter-intuitive practices such as punishing and sacrifice of innocents, breaking of promises and manipulation. The underlying presumption is that the greatest cause (general utility, ?happiness?) must be capable of justifying causing suffering of the few. The fact is that, in the upbringing and education of humans (children), some degree of manipulation is needed. Instead, in that process, we use concepts which belong to deontological prescriptions (?obligations,? ?duties?) such as ?Do not lie? or ?Do not steal.? Our question is: Can we imagine the University guided by the simple utility principle. We must remember that a University is for adults, not for children. Why now not be open and at the University say that everything we do we do for the sake of hedonistic ?happiness,? not for the sake of duty. That seems suspicious for several reasons. Maybe the most noteworthy objection is that Mill?s version of the utilitarianism tends to divide humanity into two classes: moral aristocracy, which seeks ?higher pleasures,? and others who do not. Does that mean that utilitarians must organize secret utilitarian universities for moral aristocracy? Does it mean that moral aristocracy, according to the utility principle, should organize ?deontological,? manipulative public universities for lower classes?

The greatest unhappiness of the least number

We propose an alternative articulation of the Benthamite greatest-happiness-of-the-greatest-number principle. With ordinally measurable and interpersonally non-comparable utilities, the rule chooses those feasible alternatives that maximize the number of individuals who end up with their greatest element. This rule is tantamount to the plurality rule. Furthermore, in the spirit of Rawls’s maximin principle, we propose the greatest-unhappiness-of-the-least-number principle. In analogy to the greatest-happiness principle, the least-unhappiness principle is formally equivalent to the anti-plurality rule. Our main result is a characterization of the least-unhappiness principle.

Toward a Theory of Respect-Based Communication

Too often people from different walks of life, ideologies and cultures have a hard time working together. Examples include designing a building, playing together on an athletics team, architecting environmental policy or working to hammer out a diplomatic agreement. Communication is essential for people to engage and relate in order to accomplish any of these endeavors. It is humans’ unique ability to communicate that allowed us to work together to birth civilization (Bass, 1974). However, communication can stall and fall apart if people are not on the same page or willing to take into account differing perspectives. Related to this much work has been done on relationship management theory (Ferguson 1984, Ledingham and Brunig 1998, Ledingham 2003, Waters & Bortree 2012, Pratt & Omenugha 2014), but little on how to achieve fundamentally common ground to form relationships. To solve this issue, this paper asks what the basic element of effective communication is and suggests it is respect, and provides a framework from which a proposed respect-based communication theory operates. The approach integrates Kantian respect for persons and Millian utilitarianism while not violating the moral implications of the Greatest Happiness Principle – one can demonstrate compassion and consideration, while working to achieve their desired outcome. One can demonstrate compassion and consideration (Kant 1798-99), while working to achieve the desired outcome that benefits the greatest number (Mill 1864). Bringing these two divergent schools of thought together to form a new theory is an act of respect-based communication in itself. This is logical, as in reality we do not know for certain if decisions based off of morality (Kantian respect for persons) or consequences of the act (utilitarianism) will actually play out. They are simply best guesses. What respect-based communication theory offers is a framework based from the synthesis of the two discussed philosophical approaches to allow for dialogue, relationship formation, trust-building, and long-term beneficial action. A significant contribution of this paper is a framework that can help burst through communication barriers. This framework is firmly rooted in a foundation of respect from which empathic communication can occur. Understanding flows from empathy. As one understands their partner in communication, interest in that person occurs. Trust stems from these actions and from trust blossoms relationships, which makes possible honesty in wanting to help the other person achieve a desired outcome that could also benefit one in the short or long-term. Five basic building blocks form a respect-based communication theory. They are the ability to: (1) empathize, (2) cast away one’s own ideologies, (3) put aside preconceived notions of the other person, (4) get to know the other person, and (5) ask what you can do for the other person. Putting together these pieces results is an interdisciplinary communication theory that can be applied across a number of subjects and professions. One limitation of this paper is that it introduces a theory through empiricism. To advance this work, qualitative research through grounded theory or case studies – and eventually quantitative analysis informed from qualitative study – are necessary. This paper does not proclaim an absolute, but suggests much knowledge we accumulate can continue to inform this theory. Future research should delve into how a respect-based communication theory could be applied to various real-world settings so people can burst through the communication rut in order to achieve mutually beneficial goals for the good of our world. This paper offers the framework. Make no mistake, most desired outcomes will not be altruistic in nature, but if two-sides understand and trust each other, good things can come from the relationship.

Jak pogodzić perfekcjonizm i eudajmonizm z hedonizmem? Wokół utylitaryzmu j. S. Milla

J. S. Mill is commonly considered as a representative of psychological hedonism. However, his utilitarianism has also eudaimonic and perfectionistic aspects. Thus, various aspects are interelated with one another not only in his moral philosophy, but are present also in his political philosophy. Interpretators of Mill’s philosophy inquire: how those aspects can be reconciled and if Mill's conception can be consistent then? Main aim of the paper is to explain and justify the view, that the idea of happiness by J. S. Mill based on the greatest happiness principle is founded on both traditions present in the Ancient times: eudaimonism and hedonism. I assume, that: in philosophy of J. S. Mill, formulated in the perspective of both traditions of the idea of happiness and good life, hedonism can be reconciled with eudaimonism and perfectionsm. Philosopher can be qualified as many-sided and eclectic, thus denominating his exclusively as hedonist would be incomplete and would be a result of too hasty and imprecise reading of his works.

Jeremy Bentham on Utility and Truth

SUMMARYJeremy Bentham has two very strong commitments in his thought: one is to the principle of utility, or the greatest happiness principle, as the fundamental principle of morality; the other is to truth, as indicated, for instance, in his opposition to falsehood and fiction in the law. How, then, did Bentham view the relationship between utility and truth? Did he think that utility and truth simply coincided, and hence that falsehood necessarily led to a diminution in happiness, and conversely truth led to an increase in happiness? This article addresses this issue through two bodies of material: the first consists of Bentham's writings on religion under the heading of ‘Juggernaut’ and dating from 1811 to 1821; the second consists of the writings on judicial evidence dating from 1803 to 1812 and which appeared in Rationale of Judicial Evidence.

Electrocardiographic screening should not be implemented for children and adolescents between ages 1 and 19 in the United States.

“A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking real money” is a quote attributed to the late Senator Everett Dirksen. Whether or not he actually spoke those words, it is believed that, if he did not, he would have heartily approved having been quoted as such. At this time in American history, this quote as it relates to medical spending is appropriate to the debate. No doubt, this is a complex issue at face value. We have philosophical, ethical, and moral issues surrounding this debate and the 2 types of EBM—evidence-based medicine and emotional-based medicine—as well. Biases and heuristics flavor the decision making and cloud the public policy issues that are central to how we decide what to do and for whom. The role of this column is to present the reader with the information that would allow a prudent practitioner to make an informed decision about whether to advocate for universal screening of children and adolescents with an ECG to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD). Response by Vetter p 702 Two opposing schools of thought—utilitarianism and deontology—are central to this debate. Utilitarianism was favored by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) who were consequentialists who believed that whether or not an act is morally right depends on its consequences with respect to utility, thus the term utilitarianism. The essence of their belief system was the Greatest Happiness Principle or, more plainly speaking, the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Deontology, on the other hand, is based on the Greek word todeon meaning duty. This line of thinking was promulgated by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). The central theme here is explained by 2 imperatives—hypothetical and categorical. The hypothetical imperative belies the concept of finding a means to an end, and the categorical says imperative …

The harm principle and the greatest happiness principle: the missing link

In this article I present a possible solution for the classic problem of the apparent incompatibility between Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle and his Principle of Liberty arguing that in the other-regarding sphere the judgments of experience and knowledge accumulated through history have moral and legal force, whilst in the self-regarding sphere the judgments of the experienced people only have prudential value and the reason for this is the idea according to which each of us is a better judge than anyone else to decide what causes us pain and which kind of pleasure we prefer (the so-called epistemological argument). Considering that the Greatest Happiness Principle is nothing but the aggregate of each person's happiness, given the epistemological claim we conclude that, by leaving people free even to cause harm to themselves, we still would be maximizing happiness, so both principles (the Greatest Happiness Principle and the Principle of Liberty) could be compatible.

Towards a New Theory of Value?

There is globally a debate going on about issues of economic development and how to measure it. The system of national accounts with the gross domestic product (GDP) as its core indicator has become criticized because of measuring the wellbeing of peoples in different countries improperly. The central conjecture is: If the GDP is an insufficient indicator for economic development than ranking the success of development by using the GDP growth rates is misleading. The GDP is calculated on components based on money values determined by single markets. It aims to aggregate all kinds of economic activities related to production into a single number. All single elements are always measured by market prices as they occur in the respective market places. Therefore the foundation is the values observable in the respectable market places. What is obvious as a simple empirical fact is the willingness to pay for some good or service. However, these are taking place in a specific institutional setting of particularly designed markets. The idea behind this paper is that current theories of value ignore the subjective valuations of the market outcomes by the member of a society and consider prices as objective values of exogenous pre-determined preferences of individuals. However, behavioral economics has demonstrated by experiments that this often fails to match with the ex-post subjective valuations considered as fair from the perspective of the society. Therefore specific regulations of markets have always been designed to bring the principles of social justice in line with the market outcome. When free markets, i.e. unregulated markets fail, they need regulations to bring them in line with the principles of social justice, i.e. its social values and the happiness of the greatest numbers. Therefore regulating markets in a way to tackle the mismatch between market outcomes and the desired market outcomes according to the principle of fairness and justice could solve the problem of market failures at the micro level. The fairness adjusted GDP would therefore match market valuations in line with the greatest happiness principle, which currently is not the case.

Greatest Happiness Principle in a Complex System Approach

The principle of greatest happiness was the basis of ethics in Plato's and Aristotle's work, it served as the basis of utility principle in economics, and the happiness research has become a hot topic in social sciences in Western countries in particular in economics recently. Nevertheless there is a considerable scientific pessimism over whether it is even possible to affect sustainable increases in happiness. In this paper we outline an economic theory of decision based on the greatest happiness principle (GHP). Modern equilibrium economics is a simple system simplification of the GHP, the complex approach outlines a non-equilibrium economic theory. The comparison of the approaches reveals the fact that the part of the results - laws of modern economics - follow from the simplifications and they are against the economic nature. The most important consequence is that within the free market economy one cannot be sure that the path found by it leads to a beneficial economic system.

Greatest Happiness Principle in a Complex System: Maximisation versus Driving Force

From philosophical point of view, micro-founded economic theories depart from the principle of the pursuit of the greatest happiness. From mathematical point of view, micro-founded economic theories depart from the utility maximisation program. Though economists are aware of the serious limitations of the equilibrium analysis, they remain in that framework. We show that the maximisation principle, which implies the equilibrium hypothesis, is responsible for this impasse. We formalise the pursuit of the greatest happiness principle by the help of the driving force postulate: the volumes of activities depend on the expected wealth increase. In that case we can get rid of the equilibrium hypothesis and have new insights into economic theory. For example, in what extent standard economic results depend on the equilibrium hypothesis?

Developing the Moral Integrity of College Sport through Commercialism

Developing the Moral Integrity of College Sport through CommercialismDespite criticisms that commercialism corrupts college sports (Duderstadt, 2003, Roberts 2008, Zimbalist 2006), commercialism, if executed appropriately can strengthen and develop the moral integrity of sport. A utilitarian approach to the commercialization of sport can be used to strengthen its moral integrity. From a utilitarian standpoint, John Stuart Mill's greatest happiness principle and Jeremy Bentham's hedonic calculus can be used to help determine specific approaches to the commercialization of sport. The interests of the sporting community including sport participants, coaches, administrators, fans, and community members, must be considered when commercializing sport to a moral end. Thoroughly understanding a morally grounded mission in a sport organization is a prerequisite to the effective negotiation of terms of commercial agreements that mutually support the mission of the commercial entity and sport organization. The commercialization of sport includes but is not limited to television contracts, venue signage, licensing of merchandise, and corporate sponsorships. Identifying a professional "fit" between the sport organization and commercial entity is imperative. The use of common sense, and experience as outlined by Mill and Bentham (as cited in Beauchamp 1982) and understanding human nature as outlined by Hume (1739/1964) are useful when attempting to determine how particular commercialism efforts may consciously or subconsciously develop or reduce the moral integrity of sport. Beyond sport, the influences and risks of commercialism can be understood by observing its effect on non-sport organizations. Threats to the moral integrity of sport arise when entering into revenue generating commercial agreements. Sport's overreliance on revenue from a commercial entity is a factor that can potentially cause deviation from a sport organization's morally based mission. Excessive expansion and lavish funding of sport organizations can contribute to overreliance on revenue from commercial entities. Personal greed can also play a role in detracting from the moral integrity of the mission.

Rawls's Thin (Millean) Defense of Private Property

This article suggests that Rawls's break with early utilitarians is not so much over the greatest happiness principle as it is over the relation of the institution of private property to justice. In this respect Rawls is very close to John Stuart Mill, arguing for a cleansed or tamed version of the institution. That said, Rawls's defense of private property remains very thin and highly idealized, again following Mill. If Hume and Bentham fail to demonstrate their claims, Rawls and Mill do little better. Rawls, like Mill, has constructed a challenging standard, admits to severe limitations on our empirical knowledge, and remains deeply ambivalent over the role of private property.

Contradicciones y posibilidades del liberalismo utilitarista como ideología moderna

El liberalismo utilitarista como ideología moderna surge bajo la pretensión de establecer criterios objetivos de moralidad secular. La máxima felicidad se plantea como principio rector de la acción. Sin embargo, su expresión y aplicación difiere dentro de las distintas versiones del liberalismo utilitarista. Así, en este texto el autor pretende exponer cómo diferentes planteamientos de la epistemología que procura fundamentar principios morales objetivos y, consecuentemente, interpretar las relaciones sociales afectan al liberalismo utilitarista como ideología, esto es, en sentido amplio, como conjunto de valores e ideas coherentes constitutivo de sentido de la realidad social. De esta forma, se hace un análisis del utilitarismo moderno a la luz de las propuestas de Bentham y Mill, sosteniendo que la formulación del primero guarda una aporía por el uso unilateral de la racionalidad instrumental que restringe su capacidad constitutiva de sentido. La aporía sólo puede ser superada por medio de la introducción de principios éticos, tal como lo hace Mill, que permiten, en últimas, la validación del liberalismo utilitarista como ideología.