The main pros to utilitarianism deduced from the literature include the following three points. First off, there is the fact that maximizing happiness in society is obviously making people happier on the whole, and there is not a whole lot of arguing that can be done to shed bad light onto that point. Secondly, fulfilling one's own sense of duty makes society more like a brotherhood of peers with common interests. And lastly, if all people are working towards a common goal, they will function as a smoothly flowing unit instead of a confusing mess of people with different agendas.
When the maximum amount of people in a community are experiencing pleasure rather than pain, these citizens will be essentially reaching the goal that they strive for in "ÃÂordinary life.' Since pleasure is the fundamental object of desire, how can objections be raised to a way of life that brings about a constant flow of this often-elusive commodity? According to Mill, the ultimate sanction is our feeling of being "ÃÂmembers of a society.'
By contributing to the ascertaining of happiness for the community as a whole, an individual must be at the pinnacle of this ultimate sanction. Take, for example, a player on a basketball team. When this player sinks a last second shot to win the game, she has instantly gained a higher level of acceptance among the people in her community simply because she contributed to the happiness of the group. This makes utilitarianism a much more appealing concept.
With all people working towards the common goal of mutual happiness, there will be much more cohesion within the community, producing a much smoother and more efficient society. Plus, if everyone knows that the fellow citizens are out to make everyone happy, there will be a higher level of...