Question to Mills

According to mills, an action is morally good if it increases overall happiness. The one question I would ask Mill is if he would condone murder if that act would increase overall happiness. For instance, say there was a bum on the streets that had no family and no one in the world that would be affected if he had died. For weeks that bum was robbing houses and committing acts that decreased overall happiness. If I were to murder that bum would Mill consider my act morally good because it increased overall happiness.

Does happiness have intrinsic value?

I don’t believe that happiness has any intrinsic value. I feel that for an individual to be happy there has to be an outside source that creates that happiness. An individual cannot just wake up one morning and be happy for no apparent reason. Whether the reason is that their alive, that they got a job, that they passed a test. In any case happiness is spurred from external sources.

Utilitarianism too demanding?

I feel that utilitarianism can be too demanding. All humans are different and their mindset on life and happiness differs as well. Therefore, Mills cannot demand individuals to try and always help for the greater good and make overall happiness better. Sometimes people are selfish and do acts singularly for themselves. Does this make them immoral?

Mills

In my reading, Mills’ objectors claim that there is not time to weigh the effects of general happiness. Mills argues by saying the human species has been around for a long time and that humans learn through experience. He also states that Humans have learned that their actions do effect their happiness. Mills also argues that one cannot propose the rules of morality  as improveable.