Ga7297

11/22/16
PHI 1010

In this essay, I will discuss the utilitarian theory from Mills side and the
counter argument for utilitarianism by Carritt. Utilitarian theory states that
an action is right if it is useful or beneficial to the majority. However, there is
criticism to this theory saying that the pleasure we seek can be sought from
other creatures of lower life. Mill rebuts this and says that we are more
complex and we require a more complex code of pleasure and pain. Carritt,
on the other hand, criticizes the theory and states it has forgotten rights and
that utilitarianism is not a fully developed theory.
Utilitarian moral theory is the theory that states actions are right
depending on how much happiness they bring. The objection to this is that, if
life has no higher end than pleasure, then we are doing what animals
basically do and that is to search for happiness, so we are not seeking
pleasures beyond that of a swine. Mills response to this objection is that
humans are too complex of creatures and that we need more to make us
happy, we suffer at a greater intensity, and we are more prone to find
happiness or suffering. In spite of all this, we can not actually want to sink to
a level of a creature that is less complex than we are.
Carritt, on the other hand, says that utilitarianism cannot have a
definite measure of pain or pleasure, so you do not know how much or what
pleasure or pain is enough, too much, or too little. There is no room for
justice in utilitarian theory. There is no equality or distribution of happiness
and pain and it just seems to be a thing you can get whenever and wherever

in the highest quantity possible. Utilitarianism is an incomplete theory and

has missing rights, but otherwise the points made are valid.
Between the two, I would have to say that the Utilitarian Argument Mill
makes is trumped by Carritt and his points. The utilitarian argument itself is
quite stable in what it is saying, in that it says actions are right depending on
how much happiness it brings, but it still is missing many points to it.
Utilitarianism only focuses on the happiness it brings others and there is
nothing there for the individual himself to achieve on his own. There are
other problems with this theory involving the limits of happiness, which seem
to be none. A person can be happy to any degree possible, so in theory he
could keep gaining pleasure or pain to beyond limits. The theory overall
seems incomplete and it seems to lack boundaries and exceptions about
every human being. Carritt accurately addresses these points in pointing out
that if utilitarianism took into account that it needs some more rights such as
limits and justice, then utilitarianism could potentially work and Carritt could
potentially get on board. Carritt points out the lack of a quantitative sort of
measure for the pleasure and pain aspect ratio, so you will never know the
degree of pleasure or pain received. That makes things quite complicated,
because if we do not know how much, even in a vague sense, of how much
possible pleasure or pain we receive, then we are lost as human beings.
Utilitarianism does not specify a range or amount of pleasure or pain, so that
in itself is a problem. Carritts other main argument for utilitarianism is the
lack of justice for the pleasure and pain received. It is unknown whether we

all start on equal footing with happiness or not, but either way that is a
problem in itself. Happiness seems to be an infinite thing and it can be
gained or lost whenever and wherever.
Overall, Mill argues for utilitarianism and how an action are right
depending on how much happiness they bring and Carritt criticizes
utilitarianism for its lack of rights in the theory. In my opinion, I believe that
Carritt proved better points than the utilitarian theory. While the utilitarian
theory was good, it lacked the basic needs for a social theory, its main
problem being the limits that it could have. Carritt identified that problem
accurately and questioned the theory itself. In short, I believe that Carritt
presented a better point than did utilitarianism.