Excerpts from Mill's Utilitarianism (Ch. 1, 2, 4)

Mill's Utilitarianism: foundation of morality/ultimate end - what is the foundation/basis for our lives? - happiness is intrinsically valuable - end goal of life is being happy - we don't need to prove that happiness is valuable and an ultimate end (never have to ask "why happiness?')

#1) "From the dawn of philosophy, the question concerning the sumum bonum, or, what is the same thing, concerning the foundation of morality, has been accounted the main problem in speculative thought, has occupied the most gifted intellects, and divided them into sects and schools, carrying on vigorous warfare against one another." #2) "Questions about ultimate ends can't be settled by direct proof. You can prove something to be good only by showing it is a means to something that is admitted without proof to be good...considerations can be presented that are capable of determining the intellect either to give or withold its assent to the doctrine; and this is equivalent to proof."

A Happy Life - excitement and tranquility - don't expect what's impossible in life, have reasonable expectations

#10) If 'happiness' is taken to mean a continuous state of highly pleasurable excitement, it is obvious that this is impossible...the 'happiness' that they meant was not a life of rapture; but a life containing some moments of rapture, a few brief pains, and many and various pleasures; a life that is much more active than passive; a life based on not expecting more from life than it is capable of providing."

Human happiness and higher faculties - prefer to be a higher creature despite vulnerability/suffering in order to have higher pleasures and because we have dignity -better to be a dissatisfied human than a satisfied pig*

#11) "Few human creatures would agree to be changed into any of the lower animals in return for a promise of the fullest allowance of animal pleasures...if they ever think they would, it is only in cases of unhappiness so extreme that to escape from it they would exchange their situation for almost any other, however undesriable they may think the other to be. Someone with higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is probably capable of mor acute suffering, and is certainly vulnerable to suffering at more points...but in spite of these drawbacks he can't ever really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence." #12) "The most appropriate label is a sense of dignity. All human beings have this sense in one form or another, and how strongly a person has it is roughly proportional to how well endowed he is with the higher faculties." #13) It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."

Self Sacrifice - martyrs seem to be living without happiness - only do so if it increases net happiness

#14) The utilitarian morality does recognize that human beings can sacrifice their own greatest good for the good of others; it merely refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. It regards as a wasted any sacrifice that doesn't increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness."

Person vs. Action distinction - rightness/wrongness of action vs. intentions/person behind it - good action =/= good person - good person =/= good action (unlike virtue ethics)

#15) "These considerations of personal virtue are relevant to how we estimate persons not actions: and the utilitarian theory in no way conflicts with the fact that there are other things that interest us in persons besides the rightness and wrongness of their actions."

Bad Faith - people may make the wrong exception because they think the situation calls for it - value their own happiness more than others (selfish, emotional) - happiness is not quantifiable (distinctions are possible but not little differences)

#16) "We are told that a utilitarian will be apt to make his own particular case an exception to moral rules; and that when he is tempted to do something wrong he will see more utility in doing it than in not doing it."

What if Utilitarianism is too hard to follow/ too many exceptions get made? - better to have some standard, even if people will imperfectly follow it, than no standard at all

#17) "But is utility the only morality that can provide us with excuses for evil doing and means of cheating our own conscience? Of course not!...it is the fault not of any creed but of the complicated nature of human affairs that rules of conduct can't be formulated so that they require no exceptions, and hardly any kind of action can safely be stated to be either always obligatory or always condemnable. Every ethical creed softens the rigidity of its laws by giving the morally responsible agent some freedom to adapt his behavior to special features of his circumstance; and under every creed, at the opening thus made, self-deception and dishonest reasoning get in."

Time objection - don't have time to weigh things - call upon experience/look to the past and avoid things that brought pain - still requires time to think about the past and find similar situations, assumes you find yourself in similar situations - the past could be a bad thing to look at morally (history was written by winners)

#18) "Before acting, one doesn't have time to calculate and weigh the effects on the general happiness of any line of conduct." #19) "There has been plenty of time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species. During all that time, mankind have been learning by experience what sorts of consequences actions are apt to have, this being something on which all the morality of life depends, as well as all the prudence."

Mill argues that (1) happiness is desirable (2) happiness is the only thing people seek - A is seen, A is visible (visible = can be seen) -Happiness is desired. Happiness is desirable (desired = can be desired)

#20) "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 similarly with 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."

Other desirable things - constant association of virtue or money with happiness, so people start to desire money or virtue - many ingredients to someone's happiness - how can we make moral decisions for people's happiness if different things make everyone happy?

#21) "According to the utilitarian doctrine, virtue is not naturally and originally part of the end (happiness) but it is capable of becoming so" and "it was originally a means to something that is desired and if it weren't a means to anything else it would be of no interest to anyone; but by association with what it is a means to it comes to be desired for itself, and indeed desired with the utmost intensity."

Mill on money and desire of money

#22) "What I have in mind is money. There is nothing intrinsically more desirable about money than about any heap of glittering pebbles. Its value is solely the value of the things that it will buy; the desire for it is the desire for other things that it can lead to. Yet the love of money is not only one of the strongest moving forces of human life, but many people desire money in and for itself; the desire to have it is often stronger than the desire to use it, and goes on getting stronger even when the person is losing all the desires that point to ends to which money might be a means. So it is true to say that money is desired not for the sake of an end but as part of the end."

Happiness whole vs. parts

#23) "Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole; and these [power, fame, health] are some of its parts."

Desire in proportion, pleasure/pain

#24) "Do human beings desire nothing for itself except that which is a pleasure to them or that whose absence is a pain? We are now confronted by a question of fact and experience, which like all such questions depends on evidence. It can only be answered by practised self-awareness and self-observation, assisted by observation of others...it is a physical and metaphysical impossibility to desire anything except in proportion as the idea of it is pleasant."

Greatest Happiness Principle

#3) "The doctrine that the basis of morals is utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By 'happiness' is meant pleasure and the absence of pain; by 'unhappiness is meant pain and the lack of pleasure."

Contrast from Ethical Egoism - happiness for those around you, not just yourself - too demanding? not always needed to think of the world as a whole

#4) "The happiness that forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent's own happiness but that of all concerned."

The Whole + the Self - happiness of the whole leads to the happiness of the self - if the whole is unhappy, the individual cannot be happy

#5) "As the practical way to get as close as possible to this ideal, the ethics of utility would command two things. First, laws and cosical arrangements should place the happiness (or what for practical purposes we may call the interest) of every individual as much as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole. Education and opinion, which have such a vast power over human character, should use that power to establish in the mind of every individual an unbreakable link between his own happiness and the good of the whole..."

Doctrine worthy of only pigs objection - if it can apply to pigs, then humans should be offended - only applies if human/pig pleasure is the same, but humans can experience higher pleasures than pigs

#6) "Now, such a theory of life arouses utter dislike in many minds, including some that are among the most admirable in feeling and purpose. The view that life has (as they express it) no higher end—no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit—than pleasure they describe as utterly mean and grovelling, a doctrine worthy only of pigs." #7) "The accusation implies that human beings are capable only of pleasures that pigs are also capable of...Human beings have higher faculties than the animal appetites, and once they become conscious of them they don't regard anything as happiness that doesn't include their gratification."

Value of Pleasure/ Judging pleasure - hierarchy of pleasure and pain, quality/quantity - musk ask (several) people who know both P1 and P2 which is better (eg. diploma vs candy) - happy life is not the only pleasure, we should engage in some lower pleasures and some pain

#8) It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. In estimating the value of anything else, we take into account quality as well as quantity: it would be absurd if the value of pleasures were supposed to depend on quantity alone." #9) "If those who are competently acquainted with both these pleasures place P1 so far above P2 that they prefer it even when they know that a greater amount of discontent will come with it, and wouldn't give it up in exchange for any quantity of P2 that they are capable of having, we are justified in ascribing to P1 a superiority in quality that so greatly outweighs quantity as to make quantity comparatively negligible."

John Stuart Mill

- 1806-1873 - System of Logic, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, etc. - father of Utilitarianism w/ mentor

Utilitarianism (overview)

- one idea: the goal is for the most happiness for the most people, but everyone actively thinking of getting more happiness is actually detrimental to your own happiness - distinction between action/person, consequence/intention - morally right action =/= morally right person (though generally correct) - morally wrong action =/= morally bad person - more to people than just their actions

Chilly doctrine

- renders men cold and unsympathizing - just thinking of consequences and not the person behind it is just the weighting of lives

Moral Flexibility

- understands that some instances are exceptions, no absolute rule - Utilitarianism tells us when we can break rules

What is the END consequence?

- when can we determine the morality of someone's action? - ripple effects or direct involvement - demandingness, justice vs. utility, other objections

The experience machine thought experiment (Nosick)

- you can plug in to experience all the pleasures (high and low) that you want - But you're plugged in for the rest of your life. Would you? - life is unpredictable, you never know if you'll get the pleasure or not - the high pleasures we get in life are though work/merit and we may not feel satisfied/happy - if happiness isn't based in reality, we may not have as much happiness - there is more to life than the feeling, we want work and effort that comes with it, we care about truth/reality, we want to do things

Shafer-Landau Utilitarianism

Attractions: - wide scope of moral community - criterion is having sentience, includes animals - aligns with conventional moral wisdom (common sense moral rules align and is for the greater good, and when they don't, common sense may be wrong)

Higher vs. Lower Pleasures

Higher pleasure (mental pleasures): longer lasting, come with some pain, humans (not pigs) experience it Lower pleasure (physical pleasures): short lived, easy to achieve, all sentient beings can experience

Mill's proof (desirability)

Two interpretations of desirable: (1) able to be desired (2) worthy of being desired, what is good for a person to do - good grades being desirable vs. cocaine - happiness is desired, so happiness is able to be desired (doesn't prove anything) - happiness is desired, so happiness is good for people (doesn't follow premises, may not be true) - clarifies that it is difficult to prove principles

Utilitarian conflict resolution

able to resolve conflicts through calculating net happiness (unlike ethical egoism or moral relativism)