Philosophy Midterm

What is the only thing good without qualification? p. 61

The only good thing without qualification is a good will. Dr. Price, in his video Maxims, goes over that a good will is "willing rightly" (Price, 0:40). He goes on further to describe anything else, other than good will, in order for it to be good, it must be possessed by good will. "Whenever there's an act of the will, there's a maxim" (Price, 1:20). "a good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of our very worthiness to be happy" (Kant, pg.61). Dr. Price goes on further in the video to claim that there are 3 parts to a maxim, one is the act, second is the motive or reason, and third is the consequence (Price, 2:00). He says there is the Material Maxim, Formal Maxim, or "Super Maxim" (Price, 9:00).

How does Mill respond to the objection that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine? (21-23)

"If it be necessary to say anything at all against so mere an assumption, we may say that the question depends upon what idea we have formed of the moral character of the Deity. 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. 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 good- ness 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. But others besides utilitarians have been of opinion that the Christian revelation was intended, and is fitted, to inform the hearts and minds of mankind with a spirit which should enable them to find for themselves what is right, and incline them to do it when found, rather than to tell them, except in a very general way, what it is; and that we need a doctrine of ethics, carefully followed out, to interpret to us the will of God. Whether this opinion is correct or not, it is superfluous here to discuss; since whatever aid religion, either natural or revealed, can afford to ethical investigation is as open to the utilitarian moralist as to any other. He can use it as the testimony of God to the usefulness or hurtfulness of any given course of action by as good a right as others can use it for the indication of a transcendental law having no connection with usefulness or with happiness." (Mill, 22) Mill responds to the objection that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine by claiming if happiness is "religions goal", than that is not what utilitarianism is, and no God is involved, which does not necessarily mean it is not a religion, but it does mean that there is no God pulling the strings and waging moral constructs in utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the pursuit of happiness and the act of goal setting and reaching to obtain some sort of morality and happiness. Thank you for reading. ***I'd say that the real focus of Mill's reply comes here: " 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."***

Discuss Mill's view of money. How is it similar to his view of virtue? (37-39)

"Virtue, according to the utilitarian doctrine, is not naturally and originally part of the end, but 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" (Mills p.37). Mills goes on to explain virtue more saying, "comes to be desired for itself" (Mills p. 37). Mills goes on to talk about money saying, "desired in and for itself; the desire to possess it is often stronger than the desire to use it" (Mills p.37). From the way I understand it, it seems as if Mills is describing both money and virtue to be similar in that it is "desired for itself." He describes these as something that can get so big (money, virtue, power) that it no longer becomes an instrument of happiness (Mills p.37). Ultimately, Mills comes to talk about virtue as something through association that has become a part of happiness (Mills p. 38). I feel he equates virtue to be good, but virtue, since its association, is being used like money. Only self-consciousness and self-observation and help from others can prevent them from becoming harmful to happiness (Mills p.39). **Happiness is the ONLY think good as an end, desirable in itself, says Mill. But some folks argue that virtue is like that, good in itself. But that can't be right if Mill is right. SOOO, he develops this idea that virtue can (for some) become so important that it actually becomes part of the very conception of happiness itself. It starts as a means but becomes part of happiness, thus preserving his original claim. He uses the love of money as an analogy...some people start using money as a means but become so wrapped in it that it becomes part of happiness itself. Maybe the 'scrooge' idea could be helpful.**

How is a good will good? p. 62

According to Kant, A good will is a good will because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end; it is good through its willing alone, that is good in itself (pg 62). It is a good will because of its goodness not because it accomplish anything. For example, a person who help someone because they are genuinely a good person not because they are looking for something in return.

Why are moderation, self-control, and sober reflection not unconditionally good? pp. 61-62

According to Kant, Moderation, self-control, and sober reflection are not only good in many respects (pg. 61). They can be good, but they can be used as bad also. Seeing that these attributes can used as bad they can't be unconditionally good. "They also are far from being properly described as good without qualifications", especially if the person who has them doesn't have good intentions. The only thing that can be considered unconditionally good is something that can be used for good and good only.

What tends to happen when a rational person devotes herself to using her reason to achieve happiness? p. 63

A majority of the outcomes of devoting yourself to being a rational person is the result of self hatred and anger. Being rational is the reality that you are having to limit your impulses because you know that the actions you make may lead to a negative fallout. And when you observe people who are irrational in their actions and desires, you may find yourself momentarily critical of them. Stating that while they are happy in the moment, it will be fleeting. But when they see someone reacting upon a impulse, and it brings them external immediate satisfaction. It can frustrate the man who chooses to limit himself in order to achieve a form of happiness. People who devote themselves to self control and drive themselves to strive for excellence become baffled and angered when they see someone place little effort into earning happiness and receive it. It confuses them that they have to stand firm in their beliefs and loose immediate gratification in order to achieve lasting contentment; while others flaunt their impulses and achieve the happiness the rational person desires. Kant put it this way "The more a cultivated reason concerns itself with the aim of enjoying life and happiness, the farther does man get away from true contentment. Resulting in a hatred of reason. They hate when they see someone achieve happiness based off of acting on their impulses while they have to mold their will to even pursue what they deem to be the route to happiness".

What is a maxim? p. 69

A maxim consists of 3 parts: Act, motive, and circumstance. In every act there is a maxim. Kant tells us that a Maxim is "the subjective principle of volition: an objective principle is a practical law"(Kant,2009). Volition is the principle in which one intentionally acts. Kant tells us that duty is the "reverence to act out of the duty of law"(Kant,2009) and that it is the effect and not the action that matters. So the maxim does not rely on the inclination of anything else except the fact that a person is acting out of the reverence of law, meaning they are acting out of the most pure reverence. Reverence of law is basically the respect of the law and has no selfish means behind the act you are doing. So in the most simple way I can think to explain a maxim is the purest action done not based on personal feeling or urge. An everyday example of this would be: I am will cook dinner(act) at 6:00 PM (circumstance) so my family can eat at the end of the day.(reason) That's the maxim I am applying as I get ready to cook dinner. **When we act, we have a maxim that is personal and it includes our aim, the circumstances, and the means we're considering. We then try to universalize that maxim and see if it could exist as a law for everyone. Could EVERYONE act on that maxim at the same time, without contradiction. If not, it fails the test and the means considered are wrong.**

What does it mean to act on a purely formal, a priori, principle of volition? p. 68.

According to Kant, the principle of volition explains how we as people make rules or principles not based on consequences, but instead based upon good will. He defines it as, "an action done in the purpose of the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon."(p.67-68) An example of the concept is like telling the truth even though telling the truth could get someone in trouble, but the truth was told in goodwill. The consequence of telling the is not the reason behind it, but even with the consequences being considered good will serves as a higher purpose. To act with reverence for the law means to do something simply out obedience and respect of the law. The action being done could go against feeling and emotions or someone's own inclination. Kant states, "Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law."(p.68) When I think of reverence for the law I think about the obligations of the military. Members of the military obey the orders of the president, even if it means being away from their loved ones or keeping certain information from their loved ones.

What is Mill's proof for the claim that no one desires anything as an end except happiness? (36-41)

As stated by Mill, "the utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, is an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end" (Mill 35). In order to prove this claim, Mill debates whether happiness is just a component of morality, or if it is the only component of morality (Mill 36). He uses the example of virtue. While he does believe that virtue is different from happiness, he thinks the two are more closely related than one may think (Mill 36-37). Specifically, Mill believes that virtue contributes to overall happiness and, therefore, is a component of happiness. That being said, anything that is considered desirable can be considered as such because it is a component of happiness. Mill describes things that are desirable as "a means to happiness" (Mill 37). In another example, Mill discusses how something that used to be desired to obtain happiness is now desired for its own sake; while it may be desired for its own sake, it still contributes to overall happiness (Mill 37). Mill elaborates, "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). Since a person would be made happy with the addition or possession of this component, then it contributes to happiness (supporting the idea of happiness as an end goal). In summary, Mill has expanded his meaning of "happiness" and utilitarianism to now include other desirable experiences. Since these desirable experiences contribute to overall happiness and are considered happiness components, then Mill believes that no one desires anything as an end except happiness.

Mill has sometimes been criticized for equivocating with the word 'desirable.' In chapter 4, Mill is attempting to argue that happiness is desirable as an end, and he uses 'visible' and 'audible' as analogous. Why might someone suspect that he equivocates? What meaning of the word is he using? (35)

Based on the readings, Mill has given his argument that happiness is desirable as an end. He has been stating this throughout the readings. However, Mill has been criticized for equivocating. I had to understand what the meaning of equivocating was to proceed in the assignment. The meaning is to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead. (Dictionary.com) In Mill's writing, he believed that the only proof of an object is that people seeing it and for proof a sound is audible is if people hear it. (35) So he believes that for you to produce anything "desirable" you have to desire it. He also gives the example for the love of money. This is where he could have possibly equivocated. He gives two way the love of money can be desired. The first way people desires money for it to buy other things of desire. The money is nothing more than a means to end for a desirable object or item. Then the second is people desire money just to have money. Money is the end. This is where Mill could have equivocated because the money would be the end. He says the happiness is desirable to end. He also gives examples of power and fame says that each of these there is a certain amount of immediate pleasure annexed, which has at least the semblance of being naturally inherent. Where you can not say the same for money. He expresses that the desire will lead to happiness. However, when he speaks of money he gives a point that money is the end not necessarily happiness. Which leads to the old question "Can money bring you happiness?" Or can the desired possession of money can bring you happiness?

Suppose Mill's theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you cheat on the final exam? Carefully explain your answer.

Even if Mills theory was true I say no to still cheating on a final exam. Though the action of cheating on the exam will promote happiness to the person doing it because they know what grade they can expect on it and will have that satisfaction of knowing they passed the exam even though the decision to cheat was wrong. A person should still not cheat on their exam because it will not help them in the long wrong when the time comes to really put what they learned to use, but they cant because all they did was cheat and never took the time to try and learn and understand the material being taught to make it stick in their brain. Then of course if you get caught cheating now that since of happiness goes to disappoint and being upset at yourself that you got caught and now have failed the whole test or class. **It's also important to remember that Mill says we act to maximize happiness (and feminize pain) for all concerned. So in this case, it's likely that all the others in the class may suffer some form of harm from your cheating, whether rules or grade changes or scandal...see that?**

Why is the purpose of the rational will not happiness? pp. 62-63

From my understanding of the argument laid out by Kant, Rational will is a inferior and impure route to achieving happiness. Its a blind idea that "through logic", one can select the route needed to reach happiness. That when they come to a crossroads they will be able to lay out the dilemma and make a ethical decision simply because it makes the most logic to act upon this conclusion. When it comes to logic, it is not the strongest motivator for people to advance on a certain stance. People make illogical decisions every day to further what they find attractive to their own desires, only to find out it has consequences that impact others and may be negative in a broader scope. When presented with the opportunity to save someone from a fire, logic dictates that you don't go inside the burning building to save someone if the buildings structure is compromised. Yet, we have people who are duty bound, and even honor bound to sacrifice personal logic and lay aside ration to risk the ability to save a human life. Because life is deemed valuable. Its also a weak argument towards happiness for the simple fact that to choose to be rational means you must sacrifice personal happiness. The rational decision can take away personal gratification because it will not extend positive outcomes to others. My personal motivation of what brings me happiness can be corrupted by greed and self indulgence. The purpose of the rational will is to keep me in check and to convict me to make the right decisions for the sake of others. Having ration is also something that has to be taught. Similar to common sense, being rational is supposed to be supported by fact and obvious to society. In my personal job, I am to have ration and common sense as a member of the armed forces. Yet their is a abundance of people who lack ration and the ability to make decisions that are right without being guided. We have to have debriefs constantly reminding us to not "add to the local population, and not subtract from the local population". These should be motivated by the rational will. Don't kill, don't go getting someone pregnant. The rational will should be that doing such actions could have diverse consequences that impact others. So we should immediately know not to do them. One of those rules can lead to personal happiness and temporary pleasure (I am not talking about murder when I make this statement). But the rational will would take away my happiness for the sake of the negative impact it can cause. Therefore, the rational will is not our source of happiness. It is a system of check and balance to ensure we have a outcome that can lead to happiness.

To what purpose does Mill use a discussion of visible and audible in his proof of hedonism? (35)

Hedonism is the view that pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good and it is good within itself. His visible proof is hedonism is that "the only proof of things being given that an object is visible is, that people can actually see it."(Mill,2002 ) When he speaks of audible he says that "the only proof that a sound is audible, is people hear it." (Mill,2002 ) So with this I believe he was trying to say that what makes a person happy is good. I say that because when we talk about hedonism he says "that happiness is a good: that each persons happiness is a good to that person" (Mill, ) and if that person is happy their happiness is general and therefore for the greater good. hedonism claims 2 things: pleasure is intrinsically good and pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good and the evidence of this is that people desire pleasure for its own sake and that as well is the proof he provides for us although it is a non-ordinary proof.

Why would someone object that utilitarianism is flawed because there is not time to calculate consequences? (23-26)

Here, the idea is that Mill says "they've misunderstood" and figured that we can't learn from our errors in the past, that we can't sort of make rules that when followed maximize happiness. We DON'T have to recalculate each time...we only need to learn from the 'whole of history' which actions maximize happiness.

Carefully explain the sentence on p. 19 that begins "In the case of abstinences indeed..." What point is Mill making?

I think the point Mill is making in this sentence is knowing right from wrong, and morally doing the right thing in certain situations, if you're doing something that would cause detrimental consequences you should abstain from it. He stated "The great majority of good actions are not intended for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals (pg. 19). It is important to avoid anything that is unfavorable to society such as abstinences. For instance, "the rightness of wrongness of saving a man from drowning. Do you save him because it's considered the morally right thing to do or do you do it because you want to be paid or considered a hero? *******it's the consequences that matter to the moral measure of action, not intent.***********

Suppose I tell you that working with scientists at the University of Missouri, I have built an amazing new pleasure machine. Anyone who enters my machine will be guaranteed the maximum amount of physical pleasure for the remainder of his or life. Unfortunately, entering requires the loss of rational thought. According to Mill, not many people would enter my machine. Using textual references, explain why he thinks this.

If a machine was built that allowed a person to receive the maximum amount of physical pleasure, many people would be tempted to enter. However, since this machine requires the loss of rational thought, Mill believes that not many people would enter this machine. First off, it's important to clarify that Mill's view on utilitarianism defines pleasure as being synonymous with happiness, with the absence of pain (Mill 7). The "greatest happiness principle" indicates that something that is considered moral is something that increases the overall utility/happiness (Mill 7). This increase in happiness is for the overall good, as opposed to individualistic gains. Keeping that understanding in mind, Mill would not suspect that people would be interested in this pleasure machine because utility is more than the psychological feeling of pleasure; pleasure includes "bodily and mental" aspects (Mill 10). What this means is that by taking this pleasure machine and eliminating rational thought, a person now loses something significant. With this loss, this machine may result in a lower happiness level, making it undesirable. Rational thought is what separates humans from animals. Therefore, not many people would enter this machine because "few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures" (Mill 9). Mill explains that this is most likely due to pride and the desire for freedom, but regardless, "[man] can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence" (Mill 9). Because of the unwillingness to become inferior, most humans would not sacrifice their rational thought for the gain of unlimited amounts of pleasure. ***The whole point of this thought experiment is to have us question what, if anything, we value beyond pleasure. Mill contends we value 'higher pleasures' accessed through reason and that giving up what it means to be human is not desirable at all.***

What is the true function of reason? p. 64

In this week's reading Kant explains, in relation to reason, "its true function must be to produce a will which is good, not as a means to some further end, but in itself," (Kant, p.64). Put into even simpler terms he states that while we may believe reason's true function would be to create a good will in order to help us gain something else. In reality reason functions to create for us a good will for the sake of just being good.

How does Mill prove that the general happiness is desirable as an end? (35-36)

In this weeks reading it is stated in paragraph two of page 35, "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, p35) Broken down this comes out to Mill saying that happiness is desirable as an end. Utilitarianism dictates that. Mill goes on to say that, while there is no reasoning for general happiness, there is for an individual's happiness. If every person achieves happiness they therefore attribute to the general happiness. "that each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons." (Mill, p35) **Mill sort of adds up individual desires for happiness and claims that the general happiness is therefore desirable. But, many contend that this suffers the fallacy of composition.**

Carefully explain the drowning example on p. 18. What point is Mill making?

John Stuart Mill while promoting his beliefs in the virtues of Utilitarianism stated that when it comes to elevating "He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive is duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble" p.18 Simply put, Mill is stating that "The ends justify the means". That personal, monetary or social obligation that drives ones personal convictions, whether they be for personal gain or the social contract does not matter as long as the result is the betterment of society. Morality is judged based on the outcome of the actions taken. If the result is negative, it will be condemned based on it bringing a painful outcome to those in society, while a positive outcome will be praised as a moral action. People will turn their eyes to whether it had selfish ambitions driving it or if someone profits off of success, but if it fails to impact society and benefit others, people will lash out and condemn it. Simply put, morals are defined as a positive betterment of society, and as long as good is the result of the actions taken, the motivation behind it does not carry as much weight on the human heart. Intervention of someone drowning will result in the rescue of someone's life. In doing so, society is impacted in a positive way. Whether that person was a Emergency responder who gets paid to pull the man out of deaths eager grasp, or a bystander who chose to freely answer the desperate screams of the drowning man. The motivation does not define the righteousness of the actions. A positive result has occurred, and society and morality is better for it. IN OTHER WORDS: Mill claims that people make this mistake of thinking that it's "too hard" to always be concerned about whether our actions maximize happiness, that it's "too demanding" or "too much to expect." Mill's response is IMPORTANT...this thinking is to confuse the RULE of action with the MOTIVE of action. I do NOT have to be motivated to maximize happiness...my act just has to actually maximize happiness to be right. That is the point here, in the drowning example as you point out. The consequences of my act determine the moral worth, not the intent. ****So the idea is that intent isn't important (mostly) as we wonder what makes an act right/wrong. See, Mill says that the 'reason' a person saves the other from drowning (whether reward or fame) doesn't matter. Only that happiness is maximized by the act matters. This example is meant to demonstrate that there is a difference (for Mill) between the 'rule for action' and the 'motive for action.' Don't confuse the two, he says.****

Explain why Kant thinks that the reason lying is wrong is not because it is not prudent. p. 70.

Kant believes lying is wrong, not because it is not prudent, but because he fears the consequences of not being honest with others. The book says "I will tell the truth because there are good consequences" (Kant). He talks about how there are two sides to being honest. One side is for duty and the other being for doing so with concern for inconvenient results. He says "for the first case the concept of action already contains om itself a law for me" (Kant) So the first part he is meaning that duty is above all else to him and gives him his reasoning behind why lying is wrong because of his sense of duty. The second part he says "While in the second case I have first of all to look around elsewhere in order to see what effects may be bound up with them for me" (Kant). In both, he is meaning that the outcomes in the end seem better to be honest than to tell a lie. and to be dishonest to those around him. His central idea is driven by his sense of duty which is held higher than lying. He also talks about the principals of lying,and how he may lie from time to time but in the end lying for him is not a universal law. That without truth in most situations how will one know what to believe. **Hi Abagail...thanks for the post...really close. Now, it is not the case that Kant is worried about consequences, not at all. I want you to have one more look at what Kant says gives our actions moral content. Only when done ....... ....... does an act have moral content. What are the blanks? Then, given that, think about this question again.**

Why does Kant claim that the only thing good without qualification is a good will? p. 61

Kant claims the only good thing good without qualification is a good will because without a good will, the intent is always for the wrong reason. "Power, wealth, honour, even health and that complete well-being and contentment with one's state which goes by the name of 'happiness', produce boldness, and as a consequence often over-boldness as well, unless a good will is present by which their influence on the mind" (Kant, pg.61). Kant says that he will "only perform acts that can also serve as universal law for all rational beings because such is my duty" (Kant, pg.70)(Price, 8:00). Kant claims there's only one good without qualification because he views everything else doesn't serve as universal law for all rational beings (not possessed by a good will).

Why would the good will be good even if it were ineffectual? p. 62

Kant says that "a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes... it is good through its willingness alone." (Kant 62). The intent of the deed is what makes it good, not the outcome or result. For example, if I decided to stop eating meat because of environmental concerns - I wanted to reduce my carbon footprint - it would not be effective. I'm only one person going from eating 3 burgers a day to eating no meat, but still finding something to eat that has a carbon footprint. Billions of other people in the world continue to eat meat, and in fact, people in developing countries are increasing their meat consumption, negating any reduction I can personally effect. My act of giving up meat would still be good, however, because I intend to do a good thing because it is a good thing to do. As Kant says, "Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither add to, nor subtract from, this value." (Kant 62).

Explain what Kant means on p. 70 when he says "Since I have robbed the will of every inducement that might arise for it as a consequence of obeying any particular law, nothing is left but the conformity of actions to universal law as such."

Kent is taking the consequence out of the equation here and stating that the driving factor in principles would be conformity to universal law, which are the morals of any logical human being. He is saying like in the previous question, without consequences we would default to what we know at our core as human beings, which is conformity to something bigger than ourselves, how most humans behave, what makes us look "normal." He states, "I ought never act in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law." Meaning that even on a personal, individualized scale of what we look at ourselves as people, in the mirror one might say, we should behave like the way we act, is how everyone on a worldwide, massive scale should act and behave. Our default settings as people are mostly good, omitting the primitive behaviors of the past, we all are grounded in morals that go beyond what we have inwardly, but everywhere.

What is Mill's response to the objection that there is no time to calculate consequences before acting? (23-26)

Mill argues that there has been "ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species" (Mill, 2001, p. 23) to calculate consequences before acting. We should be learning constantly from everything that has happened before us. He uses the examples of murder and theft. We do not have to sit here and consider for the first time what would happen if we murdered another human being. We already know the devasting impacts that can have without committing it. Morals, ethics, and standards are things that have been built over time, and we grow up knowing and learning about what we should and should not do, based upon the successes and failures of those before us. Morality is supposed to drive us towards happiness: happiness for ourselves and for others around us. We tend to veer away from anything that will cause unhappiness. Over the course of time, these subordinate principles are recognized, learned, and practiced over and over with each generation, and they provide us with the tools to make moral and ethical decisions.

Carefully explain the three sentences at the end of the paragraph on p. 10 that begin "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied..."

Mill makes a distinction between lower pleasures and higher pleasures, pleasures which include those of the intellect and moral sensibility. These higher pleasures are of greater value and are more desirable.

What is Mill's response to the objection that the promotion of general welfare that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect?

Mill responds to the objectors by stating that they "mistake the very meaning of a standard of morals and confound the rule of action with the motive of it." (Mill, p.18) He goes on to explain that a lot of the good people do isn't done for the world as a whole, but for just one person. That one action however makes up the good of the entire world. Mill writes that "the multiplication of happiness, according to the utilitarian ethics, is the object of virtue." (Mill, p.19) He states that one person very rarely has the ability to multiply happiness on a large scale. That one person, however, simply has to create happiness for a few people. That then contributes to happiness as a whole. Which in turn promotes the general welfare of the world.

What is Mill's view of self-sacrifice?

Mill says that happiness is the ONLY thing good in itself, good as an end (that's why it is the foundation for morality). Some folks want to say no, it's not the only thing good in itself. Self-sacrifice is good also. Mill says it IS good, but not good as an end. The only reason someone would sacrifice their happiness is to make more happiness for others. Thus, sacrifice is only good because it can increase happiness...it's goodness is conditional. If the sacrifice doesn't maximize happiness it is "wasted."

On page 19, Mill says "the great majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up." What does this mean and why would Mill say it?

Mill says this because being a public benefactor is rare. Few people have the resources or intent to be a benefactor to society at large. Most people can only influence or do good things for their immediate community or group of people. Additionally, this statement by Mill assumes the concept of "multiplication of happiness...the occasions on which any person has it in his power to do this on an extended scale are exceptional." Man should be called on to consider private utility, which is benefiting the interest or happiness of just a few persons. It reminds me of the saying "think globally, act locally" that I heard frequently in the 80s and 90s. The concept is that you should consider the good of the world, or public at large, but since almost no one can affect the entire world, we should do good things for the people close to us. Those people will then do good things for those close to them, and the sphere of influence increases over time.

Suppose Mill's theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you sell all of your non-necessary possessions and give the money to charity? Carefully explain your answer.

Mill would not support the idea of selling all non-necessary possessions and giving the money to charity. This is because selling non-necessary possessions would lead to a lower level of overall happiness, rather than a higher level. As a refresher, Mill's theory of utilitarianism includes the idea that pleasure is synonymous with happiness, with the absence of pain (Mill 7). Something that increases overall utility or happiness is an act that can be considered moral. This is the "greatest happiness principle" (Mill 7). If this theory is true, then you should not sell all of your non-necessary possessions and give the money to charity. At one point, Mill explains that "poverty, in any sense implying suffering, may be completely extinguished by the wisdom of society combined with the good sense and providence of individuals" (Mill 15). While sacrificing happiness and possessions is highly virtuous, it is not ideal. Mill says that through sacrifice, it is "proof of what men can do, but assuredly not an example of what he should" (Mill 16). Mill does not see the value of sacrifice itself. Mill believes that the intentions or motives behind an action are irrelevant and all that matters is the outcome (Mill 17-18). Because of this, the outcome of selling non-necessary possessions would be an overall decrease in happiness. Mill argues that a sacrifice in happiness can ONLY be chosen IF the result is an increase in happiness. Non-necessary possessions are only owned or purchased because they bring people happiness; eliminating these possessions is just like taking part of someone's happiness away. Therefore, selling the possessions for money to give to charity is not an option that Mill would support. ***I think, though, we might revisit your first question just a bit. Yes, Mill says that a sacrifice that does not increase happiness is wasted, but if in selling my non-necessary possessions and giving the money to charity I DO increase happiness, then it IS the right thing to do. Conversely, if I don't do that then I am NOT maximizing happiness and acting wrongly. So it's not the 'sacrificing my non-necessary possessions' that were focused on, the sacrificing. Rather, IF Mill is right and IF my selling my 4th car and two of my Armani suits (say I have a closet full) and giving that $25,000 to charity that then feeds 1,000 kids for a year....hmmmm, you don't think Mill would say I should?***

What is Mill's response to the problem posed by some people's desire for virtue for its own sake? (36-39)

Mill's believed that virtue is a midpoint to the pursuit of happiness. That People are not motivated by the pursuit of virtue, they are driven by satisfaction based on happiness. His responses were the following: "actions and dispositions are only virtuous because they promote another end than virtue... pp 36 "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. Pp37 "There was no original desire of it (virtue) or motive to it, save its conduciveness to pleasure, and especially to protect from pain. Pp38 Aristotle presented an argument called virtue theory which believed in emphasizing an individual's character rather than following a set of rules to be moral. That If we can just focus on being good people, the right actions will follow, effortlessly. That virtue is a habit and not a list of rules or guidance we have to follow. This is wrong, because it lacks the reality that humans are motivated by positives and negatives. That we do not act upon a certain set of values without a motivation that drives us. In conclusion, Mills believes that while virtue is a positive outcome of doing what is considered right, it is not the end all, be all or morality. It may be a stepping stone to perfecting morality, but the drive for excellence is rooted in utilitarian motives of ending in happiness. And through the pursuit of happiness, we will form, master, and perfect our virtues that support on convictions and morals. ****You can also think of it like this. Mill argues that the foundation for morality is happiness precisely because happiness is the ONLY thing we desire for itself, valued for itself and not for what it 'gets us' (ie...not a means). So when others object with the claim that virtue is equally desirable for itself, valued for itself and not for what it 'gets us' they are trying to prove Mill wrong (thus his whole argument would crumble.). If they are right and virtue too is desirable as an end, Mill is wrong. He responds by including virtue (for some) on a list of 'ingredients of happiness' that start as means and can become part of the very conception of happiness itself.****

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)

Mill; mentions, the only thing which is desirable to an end is freedom from pain or have pleasure. "All desirable things...are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain" (mill 7). To say something is desirable as an end, is saying that someone has the desire or want to be free from pain, or to experience and or promote pleasure. As mill mentions above freedom from pain or experiencing/promoting pleasure are the only things(s) desirable as an ends. As freedom from pain or promotion of pleasure/ experience are coined as "end" to be a mean would be an attainment of an end. Attain freedom from pain, or attain/promote pleasure. Mill talks about happiness as a "means" to an end. "Happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure" (Mill 7). Happiness is unattainable for a sustained amount of time, meaning a constant flow of happiness could not be suited as a defined "End" but at the end of life small specks of happiness throughout life could be freeing from pain and promoting pleasure essentially attaining happiness overall.

According to Mill, what does Mill think it means to desire something? (39)

On page 39, Mill discusses desire, and whether humans desire only what brings them pleasure. He says that if humans only desire what brings us happiness, then "happiness is the sole end of human action." He goes on to say that thinking of an act as desirable means that that act is pleasant, and that we can only desire that which brings pleasure and not pain. Mill later discusses how will is different from desire. When someone acts without receiving pleasure, he does so out of will, not desire. **So, what we're looking for is the part where Mill says that to desire a thing and "to think it pleasant" are the same thing. See if you can find that?**

Kant says that to preserve one's life is a duty. What problem does he see with this? pp. 65-66

People preserve their life because of inclination, not duty. The problem Kant had with this is that by people having a immediate inclination to do so and the precautions taken by mankind has no inner worth and these actions are without moral content. Kant feels by mankind doing this mankind do protect their lives in conformity with duty but not from the motive of duty. **Great work! Only when we act FROM duty do our acts have moral content. In both these examples, Kant thinks we're personally inclined to act in this way and thus, they lack moral content. That's not to say that they're bad, only to say that they can't be judged 'right or wrong.' Make sense?**

Why would someone say that "utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy of swine?"

Someone could believe utilitarianism is be compared to the animal instinct for survival and pleasure because utilitarianism is a doctrine that declares certain acts to be considered right if they are useful or beneficial to the majority. Most people share the animal instinct of doing things to survive, but not everything is just based on survival. Animals do not use the moral ethics code. They don't necessarily understand the difference between right and wrong. Utilitarianism according to John Mill, seems to be based on "the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain." (Mill, p.7) Animals and humans alike do things that bring them pleasure, but Mills suggest humans philosophy of utilitarianism goes beyond just human pleasure. Mill's response to the objection that "utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy of swine" is "Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites and, when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification." (Mill, p.8) He expresses how it is a degrading comparison of the Epicurean life to the desires of a beast. It seems as though he is saying it is insulting to compare human desire for pleasure and the pursuit of happiness to the nature of animals. Humans use of the utilitarian theory goes beyond just one's own pleasure. *****I'd make one point here and that is that the argument is not that right= what is best for the majority. Mill doesn't say anything about "the majority". Instead, it is about maximizing happiness...period. That is why Utilitarianism is not egalitarianism. It may turn out that maximizing happiness acutally means fewer people (perhaps a criticism?) What is The Greatest Happiness Principle...I think it's a good idea to commit that to memory....."Actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."*****

How is it possible to decide which are the best pleasures?

The best pleasures are going to be subjective to the individual person. Mill would say that the best pleasures are the intellectual ones. He believes that one has to experience both pleasures (physical and intellectual) to know that the intellectual ones are superior. The standard of determining which ones are the best is set by those who have experienced both. For someone to only experience the physical pleasures, they are not able to speak to what is best because they haven't experienced the intellectual ones.

According to Mill, what is the best way to promote happiness? (38)

The best way to promote happiness according to Mill is to want it and desire it. He stated " The desire of it is not a different thing from the desire of happiness any more than the love of music or the desire of health" (pg. 38). You have to acquire happiness throughout your life, and secure the things that brings happiness, because there is nothing in "reality that's really desired except happiness". Life wouldn't be fair without the sources that provided happiness for instance, money, fame, or power. I also think another way to promote happiness is through morality and goodness. "Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole" (Mill, pg 38). **Now, let's add to it a bit. Look on the last two pages of the chapter and see what Mill says about habit. What do you think? How does that apply to your question?**

Explain the example of the shop keeper. What is Kant trying to demonstrate? p. 65

The example of the shop keeper goes to explain the difference of a person presenting themselves in a manner which suggests they are acting out of duty, or they are merely acting out of self interest. " The grocer shouldn't over charge his inexperienced customer; and where there is much competition a sensible shopkeeper refrains from so doing and keeps to a fixed and general price for everybody so that a child can buy from him just as well as everyone else" (65). the dilemma in the example is the shopkeeper an owner of the store is presented with paying customers for goods he is supplying. thus he is earning a profit by supplying these goods. it is argued that self interest is in the forefront; as profitability from goods bought by paying customers are what is keeping his store open. Kant is trying to demonstrate the difference of a person acting out of self interest of acting out of duty. Had the shop keeper acted out of duty, Duty meaning despite circumstances and obstetrical an act of good will was met. The shopkeeper instead of having a fixed or general price of the whole population shopping at his store, could have applied discounted prices to seniors or children, military. He could submit a fraction of his profits to local charities, or city organizations. he could promote food drives, and or day old bread pick up. The possibilities are quit endless in terms of demonstrating an ac of duty without showcasing direct self interest. If the duty was to promote and contribute to local charities through his profits, or even as donations from the store. Wouldn't there still be a type of self interest involved? I might of misinterpreted the reading. ***Kant is demonstrating exactly what you say, the difference between acting FROM duty and acting from inclination. The shopkeeper acts from self interest (business interest) and as such, Kant argues that his actions have no moral content. It's not that they're bad or wrong, it's just that we can't say he's doing what is morally right. See that?***

What is the foundation of morals? In other words, what does the theory 'utilitarianism' claim?

The foundation of morals and the theory of utilitarianism is the idea of happiness that a person will cling to something that they will get the most happiness out of. This can be mostly found in life, a person will base their decisions on what will potentially make the happy. The book says "I have dwelt on this point as being a necessary part of a perfectly just conception of utility or happiness considered as the directive rule of human conception" (Mill). The book uses an example of a hero, and how they are noble, but in the end they are seeking some type of happiness or earn something for the work they have done. It can also be described as someone who is seeking happiness within the span of their whole life. The theory also claims that when things are not how they should be, it is happiness reversed. He also states the end goal of everything in our lives or work, or home life and the things we do are pieces of happiness. So, in short, Mill argues that happiness is the foundation for morality (because it is the only thing good as an end) and that actions which produce the most of it are the right ones. This is expressed in what he calls The Greatest Happiness Principle...I think that's worth committing to memory

Why would someone object that the promotion of general welfare that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect?

The idea here is that this person doesn't quite understand...they are mistaken. Mill isn't saying that we need to act in ways that maximize the general welfare. Few of us are even in a position to effect large scale change like that. No, because the general happiness is a composite of individual happiness, I need only concern myself with some few around me my actions directly concern.

"It may be objected that many who are capable of the higher pleasures occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the lower." To what is this an objection? What is Mill's response?

The lower pleasures are easier to obtain than the higher ones. Mill states that people "pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly aware that health is the greater good" (Mill, 2001, p. 10). Many people can obtain excellent health, the higher pleasure, but choose instead to indulge in alcohol, cigarettes, fast, food, etc. These things are easier and they fill the immediate want. Mill responds to this by stating that there is a belief that the young are enthusiastic to achieve the more noble pleasures, and as we grow older, we become selfish and indulgent, striving for the lower ones more and more. He doesn't believe this is a voluntary choice though. To consciously choose the lower pleasure, one has not been successful in obtaining the higher one. ***In the first case, Mill has insisted that the higher pleasures are more valuable and thus, more desirable. But, some folks object and argue that some folks choose lower pleasures OVER higher pleasures to prove him wrong. Mill responds clearly that these people suffer an "infirmity of character" and if it goes on for too long, they lose their 'sensibility' for the higher pleasures...think "x box for life' type people?***

What is required in order for an act to have moral worth? pp. 65-67

The philosophy of Immanuel Kant is based on the claim that good will is the only thing in the universe that is "good without qualification" (Price 0:20.00-0:41.00). In other words, the only thing in the world that is good unconditionally is willing rightly. Anything else that may be originally thought of as "good" is only good if it ALSO possessed by a good will. That being said, according to Immanuel Kant, for an act to have moral worth it must be done from duty. In addition to being performed from duty, an act of moral worth also is performed in the absence of other incentives (Kant 65-67). Kant explains his three propositions of morality. The first proposition explains that an action must be done from duty in order for it to have moral worth. Secondly, if the motivating forces during the decision process of an action are morally good, then that makes the action itself morally good too. Lastly, the third proposition focuses on aspects from both of the other two propositions. It explains that when an action is performed, the law must be followed (even if there is inclination to break the law) (Kant 65-67). Therefore, the main focus when reflecting on the moral worth of an act is the principle it is performed under, rather than the inclination.

Kant says that to help others where one can is a duty. What problem does he see with this? p. 66.

The problem that Kant see's here is a persons motivation. Just because you helped someone does not mean you did it out of love or duty. Kant believes most of the time when a person helps someone else its done because of some act of inclination which is a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way. And according to Kant it still has no genuinely worth unless its done from a sense of duty only and not inclination **Great work! Only when we act FROM duty do our acts have moral content. In both these examples, Kant thinks we're personally inclined to act in this way and thus, they lack moral content. That's not to say that they're bad, only to say that they can't be judged 'right or wrong.' Make sense?**

What is the "ignorant blunder" that Mill wishes to guard against in his description of utility?

This ignorant blunder that Mill is talking about is how philosophers are using the terms of pleasure and utility incorrectly together. Here is what the book says about the statement ignorant blunder, "A passing remark is all that needs be given to the ignorant blunder of supposing that those who stand up for utility as the test of right and wrong use the term in that restricted and merely colloquial sense in which utility is opposed to pleasure" (Mill). In the book he is talking about more than physical pleasure he is looking at the pleasures of the heart, like emotional and mental well being of pleasure. He uses pleasure as a term of freedom of pain, meaning being free of mental and emotional pain in life. He wants to promote these types of pleasures from mental and emotional, instead of what other scholars believe about utility which some believed was physical pleasure. He talks about how on this level of pleasure he is meaning is so different than physical pleasure he talks about how it is considered in a sense childish to be thinking about the utility in this way. So, in short, Mill argues that happiness is the foundation for morality (because it is the only thing good as an end) and that actions which produce the most of it are the right ones. This is expressed in what he calls The Greatest Happiness Principle...I think that's worth committing to memory

Why would someone object that the disinterested character that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect?

This is a key question as it gets after 'intent' as it relates to moral actions. Mill says these people are confused and have mistaken the rule of morality with the motive of it. We don't, he says, have to be motivated by maximizing general happiness...we only have to act in ways that actually DO maximize happiness.

Explain the objection that utilitarianism renders men cold and unsympathizing. What is Mill's response?

To build off of the unsympathizing Mill also goes on to mention about these "cold and unsypathizing" men saying "not taking into their moral estimate the qualities from which those actions emanate" (Mill, p.20). Mill first points out that this may, very well, be the argument against utilitarianism but against morality itself. He says this because "no known ethical standard decides an action to be good or bade because it is done by a good or bad man" (Mill, p.20). There is nothing to argue against utilitarianism according to Mill because it's not against the right or wrong actions but of the person. He then concludes it's the Stoics way of "misuse of language" (Mills, p.20) In my experience, there has been times where coworkers have not been intelligent enough to understand when someone is picking apart an idea, not based on logic or understanding of the bigger concept. They will pick apart the little bits, rationalize that claim of falsehood, and then claim the whole idea is illegitimate. Although this may work in some aspects of life, this is what the objectors in the questions were doing. They picked apart a small concept of what utilitarianism is and used it in a misconception. Utilitarianism is about the person and not the right or wrong.

Why would someone object that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine? (21-23)

Ultimately it depends on the individuals belief system, religious background as well as what they currently think and feel about religion. All of this can affect how a person might view their ideas about utilitarianism. In the reading Mills talks a lot about the Christian God and the views compared to utilitarianism. I personally see him trying to compare, connect, and relate but I do not see a direct "god" within the beliefs of Utilitarianism.The book says "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 a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other" (Mill) Mills talks about how the theory can apply to a god who is all of those things but he does not seem to present his own type of god. We have to remember the main key element to utilitarianism is that happiness is key. In the Christian religion God is key, not just the happiness of the people or of their God. The Bible, which is the holy doctrine for Christianity that Love is the root of all, not happiness. I can see the relation, to a god but I believe over all it is a godless theory.

What problem for Mill's theory does virtue pose? (36-38)

Virtue is defined in Merriam Webster dictionary as a conformity to a standard of right. The Standard of right referenced in the definition is morality, and virtue is the pursuit of a particular moral excellence. Mill believed that happiness is the primary directive of the pursuit of moral excellence. That we make decisions to further our own happiness and the happiness of others. He emphasizes in Utilitarianism that happiness is the sole ending of our pursuit of morality. This is what drives us to have virtue and standards. "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. Within that statement, he is convinced that happiness is the motivation that drives us to be virtuous. We do not choose to be virtuous for virtue sake. That it is an action of conformity in order to further our path to reach happiness. Selfless actions in order to do what is right for no other reason than "it's the right thing to do" seldom exists. It would take excessive discipline to do what is right with no motivation to work towards beyond virtue. Everyone has motivations that drive them to do what is right. Whether it is to make themselves look good (Which gives them pleasure that they have an outward image of morality) or because they want to ensure happiness of others (Which is personal gratification through giving others happiness). Virtue is a midpoint that leads to the end result, and that is personal and community happiness.

(GONNA BE ON THE TEST) Why does Kant say that his view makes sense of the scriptural commandment to love one's neighbor and one's enemy? p. 67

We cannot be commanded to love someone. Loving our neighbors may come easy, but what about our enemies? This isn't something that comes natural to us. But, Kant states that loving and kindness can come from a sense duty, and that when kindness comes from duty, it's a practical love. I think what he is saying is that you may not want to love your enemies, it may not feel like the natural thing to do, but we have a moral sense of duty and obligation to do so. He states that we do most things because we have an inclination to do them. I like cooking, so I'm going to make dinner every night. I like being at the beach, so I will choose to go walk around there. We are inclined to do the things that make us happy. Loving people is not always an inclination, but instead a duty. Not everything is that is the "right thing to do" comes easy or naturally.

What sort of law must the will desire if the motivation is to be strictly free of consequences? p. 70.

When it comes to the law that will must desire when it is free of consequence would be derived from the specific will of the person making an action. Is the person a logical person with morals and reasoning and does this person abide by universal law? When we make these decisions as human beings, most of us fear the consequence and we indulge that with our "reverence" to the law and to duty as well. Good will comes from nothing, and the intentions are far more important than any specific action a person could possibly do. As humans, we make mistakes, we make promises we cannot keep, and sometimes we just blatantly do wrong, when these thins are done, questions arise. What could this possibly do to me in the future that would inconvenience me or "slow me down" in my progression as a person. Universal law would be what most people default to if consequences did not come into context, but like I said, that is dependent on the person. Some people have no idea what morals are and they do not or would not care if there where consequences or not. Hence Kevin Spacey walking into the courtroom in the movie Seven, he had no maxim, no laws in place inwardly, therefore consequences had no toll on his decisions. All people abide by a strict moral code, consequences or not, and most do not stray from this code.

Explain what Mill means when he says "Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole." (38)

When looking at what Mill says it reminds me of the complete theory of utilitarianism, of happiness is the key above all else, that it is the end goal. I believe that is what he is referring to here. Mills talks about how happiness is a means to the end the end goal is always happiness so it could be more valued than it is. He is stating the importance of a higher role for happiness due to the fact that it is the outcome and reason we do everything. The book exactly says "Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole" "Life would be a poor thing, very ill provided with sources of happiness" (Mill). Mills is saying life would not be the same without happiness that we should value the concept of happiness more. That happiness is the key to all things in life. ***Keep in mind, as you think about the second question you addressed, that Mill is responding here to the objection that virtue can be and is desired as an end, thus proving Mill wrong. Mill responds by saying that virtue is something that starts as a means and becomes so important that it actually becomes part of the very conception of happiness itself. Thus we get this idea of "ingredients of happiness", the idea that happiness isn't some nebulous thing but something that has various ingredients, particular to persons. Make sense?***