The Greatest Happiness Principle

"The Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." (Ch. 2 Paragraph 2)


That sounds amazing at first and I would agree whole-heartedly because who wouldn't want to be happy, however it immediately caught my attention that this principle may possibly promote killing. Now that sounds weird, but how I took it was and it is quoted "that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness." Of course that would not at all be beneficial to the victim, however the murderer who depends on that sort of happiness of ending ones life, if such a thrill of happiness were to come out of doing such a thing for the person, would in fact fit this bill. It is also said later on "This theory of morality is grounded - namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends" (Ch. 2 Paragraph 2). That screams out to me, but it is sort of tough to say based on the outcome. The victim is ultimately free of pain once they pass on and I would have to imagine that they did not enjoy the pleasure of themselves being killed, and do presumably experience immense pain (death) while the murderer experiences pleasure and happiness from his actions. At this point I may have overlooked something, but I can say that this looks like the Principle would in fact accept this action. With that thought that I probably overlooked that the principle does not in fact support these notions, at this point I am convinced that the principle would support murder. To clarify and reiterate, the murderer would receive great pleasure and happiness out of murdering his victim, and while the victim does experience pain during the action I would greatly assume, the victim is in the end free from pain, and that is a desirable end by the principle. Voluntarily or not, it fits the principle. 

Now to back myself up, if I have in fact overlooked something then I would have to say it still in fact approves of killing, but in special cases. Where the killer does in fact receive pleasure and happiness from ending the life of his victim that in fact wants to die and would most likely want to be free from pain and suffering, or assisted suicide with a twist. Most sane individuals would not want others to commit suicide to put their burden on others and so they don't give up on life, but if that is their ultimate passageway to freedom and happiness should anyone stop them? That is a common question to always appear in many suicide cases. The pro lifer would say No! with a thunderous shout, but it is the victims life and he decides what to do with it, no one else. I in fact would be against it, but I have no say in what a person should do with one's life. I could help prevent such an occurrence from happening I would hope, and if I could do nothing about it I would never reach acceptance of the actions taken because that is in fact tough to accept. It will fit the principle... as long as the assistant also receives joy out of it as well so no parties are barred from the principle. And yes it could go against his rule of maximizing the good and minimizing the bad, but if it is so painful for one to live, and want to give up on life, then suicide would be the answer so their suffering would end. It would leave people upset, possibly shove burdens on those the victim are related too, but the victim should not put up with the pain of living just so others would not deal with his issues. Its a sticky area of logic, but I feel with Mill's rule and his principle of happiness, the victim should give up on life because the pain he endures living is just too great to bare.

It is talked about later on, "whether murder and theft are injurious to human happiness" (Ch. 2 Paragraph 28) and he did say that he would find the matter to not be very puzzling, assuming that of course it would be. But once again, in the case I have presented in the previous paragraph that would be an exception where murder would not be injurious to the happiness of a human, but in fact benefit them it would seem.


Site used: http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm