'John Stuart Mill\r'

'â€Å"Actions argon right in proportion as they lam to elicit felicitousness; wrong as they t kibosh to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is mean pleasure and the absence of pain. ” †magic trick Stuart mill astir(predicate) John Stuart Mill defines functionalism as a theory based on the commandment that â€Å"actions are right in proportions as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Spark n cardinals Editors). There are a hardly a(prenominal) important aspects of this definition.It presents utility, the existence of pleasure and the absence of pain, as two the basis of every occasion that tidy sum desire, as the foundation of morality. This however, does non state that it is moral for people to pursue what serves them in person happy (Spark nones Editors). The question at consider is what would John Stuart Mill advise the stretch to do? Fulfill the Joes request and serve up him with his death or respect the family’s wishes by keeping Joe alive.From my viewpoint, I would consecrate that Mill would tell the doctor to go forth with the family’s wishes because of his statement â€Å"is it not moral for people to pursue what energises them personally happy” (Sparknotes Editors) and in this case †it would not be moral to do as the patient role wishes because the end allow would be that it would plainly make the patient happy. However, from a utilitarian view point, a mendelevium assisted suicide can go forth to be morally justified in all cases. But in this case, it would be sole(prenominal) morally justified in the patients’ case because he is the only one who is on board with the idea of mendelevium assisted suicide.The only demeanor this way this would be morally justified in all cases is if not only the patient was on board, exactly the entire family would carry to be as well, by smell at such affairs like the physician assisted suicide as an extermination of the financial burden due to aesculapian costs. Mill’s Utilitarianism states that in lodge to be moral, one must make decisions based upon the greatest happiness. In name of physician assisted suicide I feel that death, no matter the form, usually brings many emotions such as two positive (the end of the patients abject; thusly end of medical costs), and negative (feeling of passing play and sadness of a loved one).According to Mill, the utilitarian doctrine states that â€Å"happiness is desirable, and the only matter desirable, as an end; all other things be only desirable as direction to that end. ” (Mill) so what he is expression is that we are to treat others and ourselves included as a manner to an end, and that it would be dissipated to use other people and ourselves as a mere means. If you bring forward about it, happiness is only something that can be experienced when we are alive and in reality, there is nothing desired except happiness and our actions derive from the pursuit of happiness. So if our ultimate moral end coating is happiness.My argument would be that the patient is not seeking happiness as an end but only a means because he is seeking it for himself to end his scathe. The affect of physician assisted euthanasia would be considered a mere means if it were two what the patient and his family both expected †but in this case this is not what both parties want. They each want the end result to be different. Mill also argued that individuals are the best judges and guardians of their birth interests. So in this case, he would be stating that Joe is adequate of making his own decision(s) and his family should allow him to make his own decision in this case.The only way Mill would state otherwise is if Joe was not capable of making his own decision, an example would be if he was in an unconscious state or otherwise mentally impaired. At this point a case could be make in the fact that Joe is unhappy and he knows ultimately that his illness leave lead him to much discomfort and possible pain. The only thing in Joe’s mind that will make him happy is to end his suffering and end the suffering of his family who would have to hear him battle this sickness. This would be a â€Å"win-win” business office in Joes mind.Another case could be made using the assertion that â€Å"the right thing” would be to use any means necessary to alleviate the pain and suffering Joe may face in the future. This renews and reaffirms Joe’s importance to himself and his family members. Mill has also express â€Å"all selfish interests must be terminated by death. ” I think that by this he is saying the only way to end Joe’s want for physician assisted suicide is by death. He is stating that this is a selfish want on Joe’s part †he could also be stating that the family too is being selfish in not wanting(p ) to end Joe’s suffering.So neither political party’s selfish wants are acquittance to be subsided until death. I feel that John Stuart Mills’ utilitarianism would support the idea of what the family feels and wants sort of than supporting physician assisted euthanasia. alone because his main focus is happiness and one cannot experience happiness in death. work Cited Mill J. S. , Utilitarianism. New York; Longmans, Green; 1907 SparkNotes Editors. â€Å"SparkNote on Utilitarianism. ” SparkNotes LLC. n. d.. http://www. sparknotes. com/philosophy/utilitarianism/ (accessed October 17, 2012).\r\n'