Utilitarianism is concerned with the promotion of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. It refers to the ethical theory that posits that happiness is the ultimate end of the morality. I think Mill significantly refutes moral egoism. According to Mill, the greatest happiness is based on the principle that an action is right as far as it promotes the happiness. I think, this principle refutes moral egoism because he asserts that it is the only intrinsically desirable thing. In this view, I strongly believe that it is not right to promote it. Moral egoism promotes injustices as Mill argues. He says, “All inequalities, which have ceased to be considered expedient, assume the character, not of a simple inexpediency, but of injustice, and appear so tyrannical, that people are…” (Mill 40). In this context, I feel that it is not right to discriminate others, and I should promote everyone’s happiness and not just my own. I also posit that our actions should be judged based on their consequences. If actions are good, then, their outcomes will be good and vice versa. He argues, “The art of music is good, for the reason, among others, that produces pleasure; but what proof is it possible to give that pleasure is good? If, then, it is asserted that there is a comprehensive formula, including all things that are in themselves good and that whatever else is good, is not so as an end, but as a mean,..” (Mill 50). There is no argument for impartiality in Mill’s component of utilitarianism. This is because he argues that what makes one happy makes society happy as well. This implies that everyone in the society is happy. There is no need for creating impartiality in his work because this will promote injustice that he is against it.
Your professor may flag you for plagiarism if you hand in this sample as your own. Shall we write a brand new paper for you instead?
on your first order