Mill's Ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Mill's Ethics - Essay Example She knew, however, just then that it was all wrong for Nick is a married man with two children and Mary is his wife of five years at that point in time. Now, since Chloe is a common link who happens to have witnessed scenarios on both sides and believes to have firsthand knowledge of the moral conflict, she eventually finds herself in a dilemma of choosing which between the two parties ought to be dealt with first. By the established norm, of course, she must opt to stop Jane from proceeding to fall into an adulterous relationship with Nick for the sake of Mary’s family, being the man’s original legal attachment. Nevertheless, in doing so, she would have caused Jane severe pain out of an emotional struggle which she is known to be weak in coping especially when she seems to have put forth in reasoning that her current state of affair was obtained with huge sacrifices that her happiness, as the chief consequence thereof, may not or should not be taken away from her at al l cost. Apparently, Chloe figures the validity of Jane’s argument upon pondering on some relevant aspects of John Stuart Mill’s ethics on utilitarianism, yet reserves an equivalent degree of doubt and philosophical analysis in favor of Mary. By the simple defining principle of utilitarianism in which the consequence is set to determine the moral value of an action or deed, Stuart Mill emerges to draw on a favored unique perspective where such theory ought to be acknowledged in the light of understanding that â€Å"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill, Ch. 2).† Equivalently, this is to mean that as long as an act or behavior causes one or many to be happy, then it is to be judged as morally right. One way of gaining discernment of this proposition is by asking ‘is happiness then a measure of justice?’ To what extent should happiness shape the view of morality a s good and scrupulous if there are people like Jane whose case is quite special? What if one’s doings of something make the individual happy yet the ones beyond his or her circle are rather annoyed or hurt as in the probable effect which Jane and Nick’s immoral quest would bear upon Mary? Surely Jane deserves to be happy and possesses the right to act accordingly but how can actions by which happiness is experienced be evaluated as truly ethically conforming if someone else out there as Mary is otherwise bound to be unhappy? Or must a specific area be defined within which only a certain set of actions with all the corresponding outcomes can be permitted to undergo moral justifications? At this stage, Chloe could be found to comprehend Jane on account of Mill’s claim that what promotes happiness at least for Jane’s part should be right but it would similarly suspend her judgment for Mary’s welfare since Jane’s consent of the illegal matter ad vances not in any way the happiness or interest of Mary. While their situation may be felt to require a greater level of moral concern, Mill’s philosophy appears to consist of a pattern or direction where the kind of ‘happiness’ being referred to equates to ‘pleasure’, and this pleasure comes in different forms, quality, and quantity. In this regard, the political economist seems to have chiefly adhered to ‘pleasure’