Ethics week two
To what purpose does Mill use a discussion of visible and audible in his proof of hedonism ( pursuit of pleasure)? (35)
A: The BLUF or bottom line up front is easiest summarized in that the individual's own personal desire to experience happiness is specifically for the sake of this experience. Thus, the only way to articulate this is to actually show (prove) that it is indeed desirable. The real criticism here is that Mill is accused of equivocating the word desirable by utilizing visible and audible as a means. I think that most felt that Mill's equivocation was the root of the fallacy. The use that I believe Mill is trying to make is that of tangible things associated with our desires. IE, things that can be seen or visible or things that can be heard or audible are measurable and can help to define what Mill was trying to prove. Mill himself articulates this as he writes, "Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole; and these are some of its parts. " Mills pg 38. I myself can relate to this. My own personal happiness is easily articulated. However, easier still as the things that I purpose are often times audible or visible. For instance, I enjoy knowledge of my children's happiness. Much of this comes from both observation and listening.
According to Mill, what is the best way to promote happiness?
According to Mill, the best way to promote happiness is to have virtue. " Those who desire virtue for its own sake desire it either because the consciousness of it is a pleasure, or because of the consciousness of being without it is a pain, or both reasons unit..." (Mill, 38) Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. Mill states that virtue gives more happiness to someone than having a lot of money, or having power, or fame even. Mill believes that all those things bring you the feeling of happiness, but it not true happiness because society sometimes frowns on individuals who have those things. For example, celebrities are constantly ridiculed for their actions, even if they were actions any regular person would do. Just because their lives are being constantly watched they get negative comments about their weight, the way they raise their children, the way they dress, among other things. They are constantly followed and rarely have a moment to themselves and they overwork themselves, sometimes to the point of insanity. A lot of things give us the feeling of happiness, but only virtue can give of true happiness. "There was no original desire to have it, or motive to it, save its conduciveness to pleasure, an especially protection from pain." (Mill, 38). What Mill is saying in this sentence is virtue give us so much happiness, because we do not want it, it is just something we learn throughout our lives derived from our morals and values. Virtue is so powerful that it can give us pleasure and protect us from being in pain because of the happiness it causes.
According to Mill, what does Mill think it means to desire something?
As seen in chapter four of Utilitarianism by John Mill we were learning about the utilitarian doctrine that is happiness, and how happiness is the only thing that is desirable, as an end therefor all other things are only desirable as a means to that things end (Mill, 2001). Mill believes that anything itself can be desirable, depending on the person. There can't be a true reason giving as to why someone desires happiness, besides that is might be attainable to that person (Mill, 2001). Meaning each person wants to be happy and they desire their own happiness and what makes them personally happy. Mill believes that happiness is the only desirable thing, we only desire things that make us happy. Mill believes that each and everything we desire we desire because it will lead to our own happiness. The argument about Virtue ultimately comes down to this desire of virtue for its own sake or other forms still feel pleasure to some shape or form with the virtue is attained and there is no pain (Mill, 2001). All together this means that Mill thinks to desire something it means to want something because it brings you a form of happiness. A real world example of this might look something like comparing two different parts of the work and their cultures, why would they desire those things, they are so different than what each-other desire. They desire them because they bring them happiness, simple as that, though they are very different they still bring them personal happiness.
Explain what Mill means when he says "Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole."
Chapter 4 speaks of the questioning of things desirable. "No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness"(Mill 35). The proof Mill speaks of in this chapter, is either visible proof or audible proof. He views things are good if people think they are good and looks to the proof as evidence to demonstrate pleasure and happiness. When Mill states that happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole, I feel he is meaning that one can't see anything that is abstract since it is too brief and not the norm. The concrete whole, tells me that it is very large and solid that involves many things in one's life. It tells the full story and is understood by many. "The person is made, or thinks he would be made, happy by its mere possession; and is made unhappy by failure to obtain it" (Mill 37-38). An example that I feel shows this, is that of music. Music is very complex and involves many instruments from voice, piano, guitar, etc. and cannot be complete in an abstract way. Not at all due to the many facets of creating music, such as the writing of it, playing and the creative nature, that makes the music unique. One can play one instrument well, but there still has to be the creation of the song and the feeling put into it. Music is something that brings a lot of joy and happiness to people. The final audible evidence of happiness when it pertains to music, is the finished product or the recording.
What is the only thing desirable as an end? What does it mean to say that something is desirable as an end? Carefully explain the difference between desirable as a means and desirable as an end. (35)
Happiness is the only thing desirable as an end according to Mill. I think to say that happiness is the only thing desirable as an end is saying that happiness is our endgame or our ultimate goal. Desirable as an end means we aren't going for something for any particular reason other than we just want it, because it will make us happy. It is more so like the short-term goal that will lead us to what we really want. I say that desirable as a means is the bridge to what we actually crave, while desirable as an end is what we are actually wanting. An example of desirable as a means would be son and his wanting to be a teenager. He said he want to be a teenager because teenagers can play the video-game whenever they want. He does not want to be a teenager because it will make him happy, he wants to be a teenager because he feels like that is something, he needs to accomplish in order to be able to reach his goal of video-game happiness. Remodeling the kitchen inside of the home I live in would be considered as desirable as an end. I do not want it done for any other reason other than the fact that once I get it done, I will be happy.
Why would someone object that utilitarianism is flawed because there is not time to calculate consequences.
In our reading John Stuart Mill states that "The answer to the objection is that there has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species. During all that time mankind have been learning by experience the tendencies of actions." In other words he is saying that there is no premise to state utilitarianism is flawed. For hundreds of years we have been learning through experience and the results of our actions. The act of utilitarianism benefits the whole of people. The good outweighs the bad for all, even though some may be harmed if more are helped the cost is worth it. The decisions made by utilitarianism have major impacts for mass amounts of people and to say the consequence making process is flawed is incorrect. Mankind has learned from many actions over the years therefor making the process valid and not flawed.
What is Mill's proof for the claim that no one desires anything as an end except happiness?
In the reading Mill provided what was his proof that happiness is the ultimate desire and end all of human existence. He believed happiness to be good for people on an individual level as well as in general for all people. Mill also spoke of virtue and money upon other things as parts of what happiness is. Mill used the example of vision and hearing to help with proving why happiness is good and desired by people. The proof that an object can be seen is that people can actually see the object. The proof sounds can be heard is that people actually hear the sounds. To me the comparison is far fetched. Seeing and hearing can definitely be proved whereas his claims proof is not real proof at all. Mill quotes "No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness". (Mill, 2001 P. 35) Mill went further into detail about virtue and how it is a thing to be desired as well. To be virtuous is to be good and Mill explains that virtue should be placed at the very head of things which are good. "Virtue, according to the utilitarian doctrine, is not naturally and originally part of the end, but it is capable of becoming so;" (Mill, 2001 P. 37) A real world example of this would be a high school student graduating top of their class with honors. The student ultimately received their diploma like every other student in their graduating class. The end goal was to graduate and receive a diploma even though they may have worked harder took more classes they wanted the same end result as the student who graduated with a 3.0 grade point average.
How does Mill prove that the general happiness is desirable as an end?
Mill argues that basically any thing we as humans want or desire, eventually comes back to "happiness" and, therefore, all human desire is enveloped in the end, or happiness. Mill states, "Questions about ends are, in other words, questions what things are desirable. The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end" (Mill & Sher, 2009). Mill also states that we can determine ends, if we suppose that we can use our senses. We can know something exists by smelling, seeing, hearing, etc. He maintains the same is true that happiness is a desirable end. All humans seek happiness, and almost everything we do relates back to our desire to have happiness in our lives. Mill states, "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible is that people hear it; and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable..." (Mill & Sher, 2009).
Suppose Mill's theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you be an organ donor? Carefully explain your answer
Mill makes it clear that he believes that all humans want pleasure and that we should all be interested in the maximum benefit of the greatest amount of people as long as no one is at a disadvantage "It is noble to be capable of resigning entirely one's own portion of happiness, or chances of it; but, after all, this self-sacrifice must be for some end; it is not its own end; and if we are told that its end is not happiness but virtue, which is better than happiness,"(Mill, 16). Mill's theory would take into consideration that if you are donating your organs and helping someone else get pleasure while there is no downside to your situation than it would be the right thing to do because it's morally right. Happiness that affects the largest amount of people overall is what Mill's theory wants, as long as an action causes more good than bad and everyone involved is still happy than it would be part of the utilitarian theory. It's also important to not waste anything as if you have a fatal problem and can't use a part of you're body or maybe you don't need your hair and someone else does, utilitarian theory would not want you to waste anything by throwing it away if that object can cause happiness for someone else.
Discuss Mill's view of money. How is it similar to his view of virtue?
Mill uses happiness as a central theme of many of his utilitarian ideals. More importantly, the origin of the happiness, pursuit of and the causality of the happiness is critical. In this sense, Mill views money and virtue through a common lens. Money is seen as a necessity for happiness. As Mill states, "From being a means to happiness, it has come to be itself a principal ingredient of the individual's conception of happiness." (Mill, 37) The literal translation is that accumulation of money is what happiness is. Mill describes virtue as, "Whatever is desired otherwise than as a means to some end beyond itself, and ultimately to happiness, is desired as itself a part of happiness, and is not desired for itself until it has become so." (Mill, 38) The interesting fact is that Utilitarianism uses virtue as a form of "currency" for happiness. Much like money, the accumulation of virtue is the route to achieve true happiness. This is another example of "moral currency" that people view as more enriching than actual money.
What is Mill's response to the objection that there is no time to calculate consequences before acting?
Mill's response to this is actually quite simple; of course you have had enough time to decide whether what you are about to do is right or wrong, you have had your whole life. You have all of human histories lessons to learn from. "The answer to the objection is that there has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species" (Mill, 2001, pg. 23). When I hear the phrase, "history repeats itself," the first direction that my thoughts go is towards the negative. That history repeats itself because at some point someone did something that resulted in a negative outcome, and because another person did not learn the valuable lesson from that, they repeat the same action later in history only to find the same negative outcome. Mill states, "there is no difficulty in proving any ethical standard whatever to work ill if we suppose universal idiocy to be conjoined with it;" (Mill, 2001, pg. 24) I think what he means by this is that if you repeat an action that has historically had a bad outcome thinking that somehow it will result in a positive or happy outcome, then you are a complete moron. In January of this year I traveled to Japan for the first time on business and I had the privilege to visit Hiroshima. At the Peace Memorial Park, the first thing you see is an inscription that reads, "Please rest in peace, for [we/they] will not repeat the evil." [We/they} referring to both sides, this park is one huge call for peace and a somber request to never use an atomic or nuclear weapon on Earth again. While the United States may have thought at the time that it had to be done for the greater good, when you personally witness the carnage it caused to every man, woman, and child that day, you know in your heart that we as a human race can never do that again. There are so many acts such as murder and theft that have laws against them because over time the human race realized that those acts were wrong and did promote overall happiness. Every human being has time, even if only a split second, to think about the consequences of their actions. If you are about to shoot someone dead, I imagine there is that brief moment (call it your conscience speaking to you or just plain rationalization) that you stop and think about what you are about to do and the consequences of it. "Being rational creatures, they go to sea with it ready calculated; and all rational creatures go out upon the sea of life with their minds made up on the common questions of right and wrong, as well as on many of the far more difficult questions of wise and foolish" (Mill, 2001, pg. 25).
Suppose Mill's theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you eat meat?
The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable as an end, all other things being desirable as a means to that ends (Mill,2001 p.30). According to this statement on utilitarianism, it's okay to eat meat because meat is desirable which can make you happy. When taking meat out of an everyday diet it can make you feel really weak which can be painful. The ulitarian approach can also be used to argue that animals aren't being treated well but the enjoyment of humans enjyoying the meat makes it acceptable. We also need protein in our diets to remain healthy and protein is in the meat that we eat. This statement is true because we need protein to remain heathy but this can be found alternatively in morning shakes or vitamins. Humans are needed more than animals on this earth for reasons like reproduction. Since humans are needed more, this would make eating meat acceptable.
Suppose Mill's theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you sell all of your non-necessary possessions and give the money to charity?
The general themes are that an action can not in itself be judged good or bad based solely by the perceived character of the individual preforming the act, for certainly no ethical standard decides an action to be good or bad because it is done by a good or bad man (Mill, 20). Another general theme is that the principle of utility may be susceptible to proof. Happiness is attainable through desire and will and since the will to desire happiness is attainable people chose to obtain happiness over pain. The way the utilitarian principle is susceptible is that it is unknown why people desire happiness. So far as every person believes happiness is attainable, people will always desire their own happiness (Mill, 35). If Mill's theory of utilitarianism is true, then a person need not sell all non-necessary possessions if they provide happiness or bring unhappiness by not possessing them. People possess items most of the time because they are a means to happiness. A stove for example does not necessarily bring a person happiness, but it is a means. Nor does the cooking process the stove provides bring happiness, again a means. The happiness is the consumption of food to satisfy a hunger. The stove is a non-necessary possession and the alternative would be to eat cold, uncooked food is deemed a pain rather than a pleasure and the utilitarian doctrine states that people seek happiness with the absence of pain.
Explain the objection that utilitarianism is a doctrine of expediency. What is Mill's response?
The objection to utilitarianism which states that it is a doctrine of expediency means that the theory of utility is used for convenience. When someone claims utility for a decision that is based more on the matter of convenience or a desire to serve oneself, this is said to be done in expediency which is "taking advantage of the popular use of that term to contrast it with principle". (Mill, p. 22) Expediency in utility is seen during times where one individual who is an agent acts with his own interests in mind and purports and justifies it to be what is a matter of utility for others. This has been seen in political appointments when an individual seeks to support his/her own interests and aspirations by seeking appointment rather that seeking appointment because they can bring forth the greatest success and change for the future. Often, they will then seek out others who will merely go along with their wishes despite what level of utility can be developed by the greatest number of citizens. Expediency is further be realized when something more immediate is sought even despite the overall utility of that person. Consider someone who greatly desires to save money or get out of debt, but they are an impulse purchaser. Their immediate expediency overrules their greater long-term goals which will likely offer them the most utility. As a defender of utilitarianism, Mill points out that, "there is not time, previous to action, for calculating and weighing of any line of conduct on the general happiness". (Mill, p.23) He directly states that as humans, we have learned and developed our standards of right and wrong as we have gone through time. We "have been learning by experience the tenacities of actions; on which experience all prudence as well as all the morality of life are dependent". (Mill, p.23) We as people, have to use these lessons that have been learned along the way until there is something better to learn from.
What is Mill's response to the problem posed by some people's desire for virtue for its own sake?
The problem posed by people's desires for virtue is that it can be disguised as happiness. "They desire for example, virtue and the absence of ice no less really than pleasure and the absence of pain. The desire of virtue is not as universal, but it is as authentic a fact as the desire of happiness." (Mill, p. 36) In this case it can easily be misguided that virtue be happiness, one may seek fortune and will work their whole lives to gain that and once they do have that it can be unsatisfying. For myself, I would love nothing more than to not have debt and to have that extra money to spend but I don't think of that as happiness I think of that as a want. I want all these things, but I need to have food and a roof over my head. In the text Mill says "... shall we say of the love of money? There is nothing originally more desirable about money than about any heap of glittering pebbles. Its worth is solely that of the things which it will buy; the desires for other things than itself, which it is a means of gratifying. Yet the love of money is not only one of the strongest moving forces of human life, but money is in many cases desired in and for itself; the desire to posses it is often stronger than the desire to use it, and goes on increasing when all the desires which point to ends beyond it, to be compassed by it, are falling off. It may, then. Be said truly that money is desired not for the sake of an end, but as a part of the end. From being a means to happiness, it has come to be itself a principal ingredient of the individual's conception of happiness." (Mill, p. 37) This I feel is a huge part of many people's lives, but it is not happiness. It may buy things that make us happy, but it's a means to that. Earlier in the book he explains what makes a happy and satisfied life and that is tranquility and excitement. In this case money is a means to that tranquility such as a vacation to a secluded mountain where you can relax, this is also a means to the excitement such as a trip to Disney World with all the rides and attractions. It's easy to mistake the virtue as happiness and get caught up in everything.
What problem for Mill's theory does virtue pose?
The problem with virtue when discussing Mill's theory is that in his is teachings, happiness is the only way for things to end. Virtue poses a problem because there are times when you have to put happiness aside in order to do the right thing and be virtuous. Doing the right thing doesn't always come with good feelings and can leave you feeling conflicted and even upset. However, in the end, being virtuous will help you find true happiness in knowing that you did the right thing and held high moral standards. "Virtue, according to the utilitarian doctrine, is not naturally and originally part of the end, but it is capable of becoming so; and in those who live it disinterestedly it has become so, and is desired and cherished, not as a means to happiness, but as a part of their happiness" (Mill 36). Virtue is not the end but a means to get to the end goal of true happiness.
What is Mill's response to the problem posed by some people's desire for virtue for its own sake?
Those in opposition of Mill's thoughts contend that there are other ends to human actions besides happiness, such as virtue, which is contrary to one of the fundamentals of Utilitarianism. They consider virtue an end and use that idea to contend that happiness cannot be a basis of judging morality. Mill, in absolutely no way, argues that virtue does not play a part of the happiness principle. He acknowledges that virtue influences happiness and recognizes its importance. He states "[The Utilitarian standard] enjoins and requires the cultivation of the love of virtue up to the greatest strength possible, as being above all things important to the general happiness." (Mill 38) He doesn't contend virtue plays no part in the desire of happiness, he seeks to prove that it is not an end. His response is that virtue can be desired and cherished to the point that it is not only a means to happiness but becomes an actual part of the individuals happiness. He states that "[virtue] which by association with what it is a means to comes to be desired for itself, and that too with the utmost intensity" (Mill 37) He goes on to use money as an example of such by pointing out that sometimes a person can become so obsessed it that the desire to have it outweighs the pleasure of purchasing something with it. In this case virtue has become and end that is to be desired. But it still remains only a part of happiness and not an end to be used in the judgement of morality. He also points out that virtue is not necessarily an original or natural desire of ours. That virtue is something that we create by assigning value to that which gives us pleasure, somewhat furthering that idea that virtue is compiled in happiness but not an end to be desired. He further explains how our desire to be virtuous can become our will and that "will, like all other parts of our constitution, is amenable to habit, and that we may will from habit what we no longer desire for itself, or desire only because we will it. (Mill 40) So our pursuit of virtue, even though based on pleasurable desires, can even become more of habit, even when not truly desired. At that point the desire of virtue is diminished. I can desire to be rich, successful and famous, possessing all the qualities that we associate with virtue. And as I obtain wealth it may bring me happiness. But honestly, I would probably want more. I could become a project manager, and be happy, but If I were driven enough to obtain that position, I would probably be dismayed if I couldn't become a director. It's because of situations like these that virtue can't be as simple as being an end. Virtue can dictate levels of happiness, but in a brand sense, it isn't consistent enough to be sought as an end. This can be mapped to the desires of a "workaholic", being someone who acts based on desire to be happy with his or her work and wills it to become a part of their happiness. As time goes on, their behavior can become habit even though slowing down a bit could also be a source of enjoyment.
Why would someone object that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine?
To conclude chapter two of "Utilitarianism and the 1868 Speech on Capital Punishment," John Stuart Mill describes how lying can weaken the trustworthiness of human confidence. "...even unintentional, deviation from truth does that much toward weakening the trustworthiness of human assertion" (Mill 23). However, there are exceptions to this rule. Lying for the sake of righteousness and with good intentions is not condemned. For example, if someone broke into your house, had you at gunpoint and asked if there was anyone else in the house, it would not be wrong to lie and say "no" even though your child was upstairs sleeping. The intention was to protect them from harm, and the lie was able to achieve that. In chapter four, Mill spoke of the proof of desire. If you prove visibility by seeing it, prove something is audible by hearing it, then it stands to reason that you can prove something is desirable by people desiring it (Mill 35). Virtue is a huge factor in why people do what they do. They want to attain it believing it is the means to happiness. However, if virtue caused no happiness or pain, then people would not seek to reach it. Utilitarianism is not a godless doctrine as some would believe. It's easy to assume that the pursuit of happiness for yourself and others may have no faith behind it. That perhaps it is solely about the selfish pleasures of the individual. At first glance it may even seem hedonistic. However, through the readings and the PowerPoint video, hedonism is strictly more self-indulgent. Hedonism does not take into account the good of the majority like utilitarianism does. Mill counters with, "...we may say that the question depends upon what idea we have formed of the moral character of the Deity" (Mill 22). There have been many faiths and gods over the centuries. It's safe to say that there are major differences in all the religions and gods that people have chosen to pray to. "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other" (Mill 22). Considering most people follow the morals of a higher power as motivation for their lives, than it stands to reason that the happiness one is attaining is based on the morals of their respective God, which makes utilitarianism more religious than initially suspected. Utilitarianism does not command to follow the morals of this one and only God, it is more so to follow the morals of your god or gods, whoever and whatever that may be (By another classmate)
Suppose Mill's theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you cheat on the final exam? Carefully explain your answer.
Utilitarianism is based on the happiness of the majority. So whichever decision you make should make the most people happy. Based on that logic, I do believe utilitarianism would allow for one to cheat on the exam as it brings happiness to most people if done discreetly of course also assuming you pass the exam. Whereas honestly taking the test with honor and integrity could result in failing, which will make you and others unhappy. There are several ways that cheating on the final exam could go, but for the sake of this question, I will assume that you cheat and pass. If that is the case than according to Utilitarianism, you should cheat on the exam.
"How does Mill Respond to the objection that utilitarianism is a Godless doctrine?"
We not uncommonly hear the doctrine of utility inveighed against a godless doctrine" (Mill, p. 21-22). Mill begins by recognizing that some claim utility as a Godless doctrine and he then goes on to theoretically explain that he does agree by stating, "If no more be meant by the objection than that many utilitarians look on the morality of actions, as measured by the utilitarian standards, with too exclusive a regard, and do not lay sufficient stress upon the other beauties of character which go toward making a human being lovable or admirable, this may be admitted" (Mill, p. 21). He admits that this small part may be true, although Mill responds to the objection that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine by stating, "If it be necessary to say anything at all against so mere an assumption, we may say that the question depends on what idea we have formed of the moral character of the Deity" (Mill, p. 21). The way in which Mill responds is of bitterness to the objection, by him saying that it was "so mere an assumption" he is in a way rejecting the assumption. Mill goes on to respond with "If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a Godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other" (Mill, p.21). This statement gives full support that Mill is stating that not only are people wrong by saying utilitarianism is a Godless doctrine but utilitarianism is just the opposite. Mill supports his view by saying, "If it be meant that utilitarianism does not recognize the revealed will of God as the supreme law of morals, I answer that a utilitarian who believes in the perfect goodness and wisdom of God necessarily believes that whatever God has thought fit to reveal on the subject of morals must fulfill the requirements of utility in a supreme degree" (Mill, p. 21). Mill gives this final support to say that not only is utilitarianism the opposite of a Godless doctrine but a true utilitarian who believes in goodness and wisdom of God trusts that God knows what is morally supreme. Lastly Mill answers to the overall objection that "there has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species, during all that time mankind have been learning by experience the moralities of life" (Mill, p. 23-24). I found this statement that Mill made very insightful to the fact that through evolution and learning experiences the human species has slowly been understanding morals, happiness, and what people desire. Mill wraps up his response by saying, "to consider the rules of morality as improvable is one thing; to pass over the intermediate generalization entirely and endeavor to test each individual action directly by the first principle is another" (Mill, p. 24). (Not my words)