John Stuart’s theory of utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill developed a theory of happiness based on his belief. He was an economic, political, and social philosopher. Stuart analyzed the issue of happiness from the perspective of utilitarian theory. In his book, utilitarianism, Stuart advocated for the definite course of action that resulted in the most desired result. The theory put a condition that for a human being to achieve the highest level of happiness, then every achievement has to be a result of the use of an appropriate means. For an individual to achieve full happiness, the course of action in every matter has to be analyzed such that the projected outcome is the most desirable of all. Consequently, the outcome of a course of action that is on the course of being undertaken or is to be undertaken lies in the value of the outcome. One can conclude that conforming to those actions that give the greatest satisfaction to the individual will result in overall happiness (Mill & Crisp, 1998).
Conflict of Stuart’s theory
Stuart’s theory contrasts with other theories that dictate that the action itself must be pleasant, or must elicit happiness for the person executing the particular action to be happy. Certain principles have to be adhered to in the course of action in order to achieve the desired outcome. The effect of utilitarian rules on the individual is not taken into consideration. In that essence, the conflict in Stuart’s theory is that the contribution of the action or the means in realizing an achievement is nullified.
Societies around the world have cultures that are analogous to each other in many aspects. Most cultures advocate that in the quest for achievement by an individual, the means of achievement are considered. The value of achievement is not critical to many cultures, and the sanctity of the means is paramount. However, in some cultures, the most important aspect of actions is the outcome of the action to the individual. However, this theory does not take into account the effect of the actions on the individual (Mathews & Izquierdo, 2009).
Comparison with the trend of contemporary society
Stuart views the issue of ethics from the perspective of the results of an action. Any action that results in a pleasant feeling for an individual then justifies the means. On the other hand, the word, happiness, is relative according to other sociologists. The opinion of what happiness is to an individual influences nature of the outcome to an individual. An individual may spend time and effort using an unpleasant method of trying to achieve an outcome that will make him or her happy.
Moderation of utilitarianism doctrine
Stuart’s theory has an effect on the society we live in since the communities in it exhibit the characteristics of adoption of Stuart’s propositions. In today’s society, the course of action that generates the most desired outcome for an individual is more important to a particular person. Traditional cultures, which advocate for observation of norms and ethical rules while going about seeking gratification, are ignored. People tend to modify the culture and label the most productive means as the way to happiness (Malloch & Massey, 2006). Modern societies will endure undergoing torturous processes in order to achieve a certain goal. In this case, the achievement of the goal is ultimate happiness, and this is an endorsement of Stuart’s theory.
Stuart’s theory on happiness and the opposing theories are both too radical for practical application. In addition, we realize that Stuart seems to envision a contemporary society in his book, utilitarianism. A moderate application of Stuart’s theory where the concept of the rules is dynamic is more effective in a multicultural society.
References
Malloch, T. R., & Massey, S. T. (2006). Renewing American culture: the pursuit of happiness. Salem, MA: M & M Scrivener.
Mathews, G., & Izquierdo, C. (2009). Pursuits of happiness: well-being in anthropological perspective. New York: Berghahn Books.
Mill, J. S., & Crisp, R. (1998). Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.