Mill’s Utilitarianism Vs. Aristotle's Moral Virtues

Mill’s Utilitarianism Vs. Aristotle's Moral Virtues 

Introduction 

In moral philosophy, John Stuart Mill and Aristotle share differing views on morality through their theories Utilitarianism and Moral Virtues, respectively. According to Mill, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 97).  Utilitarianism holds that a deed is morally wrong when it reduces overall well-being and ethically correct when it increases general well-being. Instead of concentrating on the result, utilitarianism stresses the need of making oneself as important as possible during one's existence. Happiness, in Mill's view, could only be obtained via one's usefulness or value to others. He asserts that the ability to take action and accumulate successes that benefit both the individual and humanity at large is the source of happiness. On the other hand, Aristotle’s Moral Virtues denote that Moral virtue is the moral disposition to act ethically, serving as a balance between excess and insufficiency, both of which are regarded vices. He further categorizes virtues into two kinds; intellectual and moral (Aristotle 144).   Aristotle posits that moral excellence is primarily acquired through habit and practice, rather than through education and logic. He notes that having the right mindset toward both pleasure and pain is what it means to be virtuous. Notably, both theories, Utilitarianism and Moral Virtues demonstrate morality in different perspectives and each has its own relative strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, my papers seek to explore relative strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism and Moral Virtues and argue why I believe Moral Virtue theory is able to overcome objections or explain the nature of right action in a more plausible, systematic, or desirable way than the other. 

Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism

 Firstly, the main strength of the utilitarian approach is its emphasis on the welfare of the majority, which guarantees a socially conscious and open-minded response to any issue that may emerge. This makes decision-making simpler when compared to other theories. Likewise, Utilitarianism provides us with a systematic approach to determine the optimal course of conduct in a given situation, i.e., the course of action that will maximize utility. This is in contrast to other moral theories, such deontology, which don't always provide a conclusive answer. For example, deontology emphasizes the motivations or reasons behind one's acts, and sometimes it might be difficult to discern one's motivations or reasons. Even when someone makes their intentions or logic apparent, they may not always be telling the truth. Nevertheless, an action's consequences do provide us with a clear guideline for what counts as a morally good conduct. If a course of conduct brings to happy or positive effects, it is morally acceptable. Thus, through the approach, decision-making is made simpler. 

Secondly, another strength of Mill’s Utilitarianism is its emphasis on neutrality. According to Mill, we should follow a number of well-known moral guidelines to determine what is good to do, and we typically don't even need to think about it much (Mill 99).  This proves that judgments should be made with a "God's eye" viewpoint, giving each individual the same weight. Consequently, utilitarianism is an objective moral philosophy that sees everyone's position and interests as equal due to its emphasis on objectivity. 

While utilitarianism is a theory with certain virtues, critics would argue that it also has flaws that make it a problematic moral theory. A critic would the approach’s neutrality component. Although some see this as a benefit of the utilitarian principle, it is also a drawback. Challengers would argue that Utilitarianism diminishes the importance of interpersonal bonds since it sees everyone equally. Living utilitarian sometimes means sacrificing our relationships with our loved ones. According to utilitarianism, we should conduct in a way that will have greater repercussions while ignoring feelings and interests of our immediate families. Yet it feels like this is impersonal. Opponents would argue based on deep relationship we have with our families, the interests, sentiments, and desires of our family and that we should take precedence over those of total strangers. To support their argument, they would state that every one of us has unique relationships with people that we want to grow and that, for the most part, make us better people. In their view, it appears wrong to ignore these people's interests, feelings, and desires in favour of Mill’s Utilitarian approach  

Additionally, critics of Utilitarianism would point out the theory permit actions that are deemed evil or socially unacceptable to be classified as beneficial as long as they are carried out by the majority. To them, the theory should associate with swine ethics. According to them, Mill’s view of morality view depicts that majority of people accepting vices like mob justice a right action because it supported by many people is wrong. To critics, this aspect renders the theory implausible because certain things might be thought of as beneficial when they actually aren't. A notable example in support of their argument would be that most western nations supported colonialism, which was beneficial to the colonialists since it allowed them to accumulate substantial income from their colonies. To majority, colonialism was a right thing as per Mill’s Utilitarianism. However, morally, it was wrong since the colonies experienced oppression and violations of their rights by colonists. 

Strengths and Weaknesses of Moral Virtues 

Aristotle’s Moral Virtues appears to be the most suitable approach for addressing human nature, character, and society.  According to the theory, a virtue is a character trait, the willingness to behave morally or carry out one of life's most basic duties (Aristotle 144). The proper course of action is the one that a decent person would choose in a comparable situation. Virtue ethics is person-based rather than action-based; it emphasizes the morality or virtue of the individual engaging in an activity rather than moral obligations, laws, or the outcomes of particular deeds. Besides addressing the morality of an individual's actions, virtue ethics provides guidance on the qualities and conduct that a person pursuing virtue should strive for. This method of virtue ethics takes into account a person's complete life as opposed to simply particular events or actions. 

Similarly, hard-universalist theories like utilitarianism and deontology contend that there is a single ethical rule that applies to everyone, wherever in time and space. This is not the assertion made by virtue ethics. Supporters of this viewpoint can argue that some values, such as compassion, integrity, and honesty, are timeless and cross-cultural boundaries. However, their goal is not to pinpoint overarching moral teachings that can be utilized in every circumstance. Rather, they acknowledge that many of the characteristics that are labeled as virtues and vices are cultural in nature and that our emotional connections and the commitments, we have to those we care about form the basis of some of our most important ethical duties. However, in the end, virtue ethicists will always question themselves, ‘What would a good person do?’ When people practice virtue ethics, they will think about what they can do to improve themselves. 

Although, Aristotle’s virtue ethics may avoid some of the apparent flaws of duty-based ethics and of utilitarianism. An opponent of the theory can contend that those who practice virtue ethics are not bound by strict laws or the requirement to abide by the legal system of a state. As obligation ethics would seem to require, it makes sense that someone who has formed a sympathetic disposition in accordance with virtue ethics would not willingly give up a friend's hiding place in order to avoid being compelled to lie. 

Furthermore, a critic of Aristotle’s theory would content that a person who follows virtue ethics would not be constrained by the "tyranny of the (happy) majority," which seems to be a utilitarian principle. They would argue that virtue ethics liberates individuals from the confines of majority happiness, contrasting with utilitarian principles. According to them, adherence to virtue fosters autonomy, steering away from mere utility maximization. This perspective contends that prioritizing virtue over collective happiness prevents the subjugation of individual moral agency to societal norms. By emphasizing character development and ethical decision-making rooted in intrinsic values, virtue ethics transcends the utilitarian notion of happiness as the ultimate end. Thus, opponents of this criticism advocate for a philosophical framework that prioritizes personal integrity and moral excellence over conformity to societal expectations. 

Conclusion 

With consideration of strengths and weaknesses of both Aristotle’s Moral Virtue and Mill’s Utilitarian approach as explained above, I believe that virtue ethics is far more useful and practical than utilitarianism. Humans cannot be objective, particularly when it comes to friends and family. It becomes nearly hard to avoid the love of friends and family in many situations. As such, impartiality is not highly valued in virtue ethics, in contrast to other systems. Aristotle believed that because humans are capable of rational thought, they are special among living things. In fact, people are able to recognize the ends and choose between two activities that will lead to a desirable objective. People have emotions as well, and they affect the decisions they make. Merely adhering to laws and regulations without considering one's personal emotions and sentiments is insufficient. The virtue theory takes the stance that people should behave out of obligation even when they are not motivated to do so, despite the fact that this contradicts Kant's thesis. Kant's view holds that moral decisions can be made by people, yet they can nevertheless lead unfulfilling lives and fail to develop virtues (107). Unlike other systems, the virtue ethics theory does not enforce rigid norms and standards of behavior. Rather, it is based on moral principles, providing a compromise between opposing extremes. This approach makes the theory more applicable because it provides a full solution to our everyday moral difficulties and acknowledges that there is never a single ethically perfect path of action. 

Work Cited 

Aristotle, 3. Nicomachean ethics. (1998), trans. W.D Ross, pp. (28-47). Oxford University Press. 

Kant, Immanuel. "The good will and the categorical imperative." From Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Mary Gregor. Reprinted with the permission of Cambridge University Press. (1998): 106-119. 

Mill, John Stuart, and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism. From Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Mary Gregor (1998). Reprinted with the permission of Cambridge University Press.