Consider Utilitarianism, He Asked Nicely
In the first chapter of Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mills, the philosopher introduces a question of endless mystery and enduring conversation similar to the arguments over intelligent design or even the creation of the universe. He presents an investigation with endless disputable hypotheses which searches for the primary source which determines proper decision making. Resulting from the delicate critiques of the current popular ethical opinions delivered by the cunningly polite philosopher accompanied with his effective ability to prove a mutual preeminence of happiness in determining an individual’s sentiments towards right and wrong, and such a thoughtful tone of courteous cordiality throughout his entire claim, Mill’s valid and justifiable introduction to a presentation of utilitarianism as this source truly brightens the light with which he intended to throw upon the surely considerable theory.
Tactically, John Stuart Mills touches only slightly on the adverse effects of world stuck with a deficient understanding in the adoption, definition, and application of morals. Unfortunately due to my own life experiences, I was already well aware of the glaring misconceptions present in current society and anticipated his mention of its dreadful consequences. Fortunately, I developed the ability to overcome the barricades of a flawed popular system to set personal, good-conscious beliefs which incidentally mirrored the theories described by Mills in Chapter 1 of Utilitarianism.
As a young child, I was tossed into the whirlwind journey of learning right from wrong in the same manner as most every early eager adolescent and so initially my morals began to take shape solely based off of my native geographic placement. When a newborn baby learns to walk and talk, shortly after he begins forming sentences, the word “why” is one of frequent use from their tiny box of vocabulary. And, the adults in a child’s life who are asked these wondrous questions often make the fatal error of passing down their own moral opinions through their personally obtained theories of purpose or reason. The lamentably naïve child acts like a sponge, and a child’s sponge-like mind is vastly more likely to soak up every explanation given to them as pure fact. This sort of behavior enables a human being’s environment to have the most significant impact on determining their moral fiber which , more often than not, prevents them from individually pursuing the matter on their own. It is evidently difficult for them to break away from this preconditioned state of mind thrust upon them against their will. Up until the past year, I had still been chained and bound to many of these preconditioned opinions which had been forced upon me. After slowly loosening the chains, one by one, I was left with a mind convinced of the possibility that everything I ever knew could potentially not be true. Once I began to sift through all of the bullshit in search of only the ultimate truths, the most obvious deceptions became evident within the workings of each organization which took previous attempts at shaping my ethical foundation. I thought, “How could I trust these messages of right or wrong to be true when they are presented to me by men and women who I’ve been shown are downright liars and hypocrites?” It would be nonsensical to go on subscribing to these betraying notions fixed upon my fickle brains any longer and, thus, I continued to evolve my thought process with comprehensive cogitations of what my mind honestly believed in without the direct influence from outside forces. Just like that, I had naturally manufactured the remedy for moral disease: self-inquisition. The only way one should travel the path on which they search for belief is alone, carefully preventing oneself from becoming indoctrinated into accepting any set of rules just because someone else decided make the proclamation they were undeniably