Ethics- Weeks 1-3

3-17: What is a maxim? P.400-401

A maxim is a personal rule for action; it is a rule that I give myself. According to Kant, every time I make a choice I apply a maxim. It consists of an act, a circumstance, and a motive. Formally, every time I act, I am saying "I perform act A in circumstance C for reason(s) R." For instance, suppose I have a bad day. I get home and pour myself a bourbon on the rocks. I am applying a maxim, "I will have a strong drink after a bad day because it helps me with the stress (provides pleasure)." The fact that my acts are always based on maxims is the result of the kind of thing that I am: I am a rule maker. I make the rules for myself to live by, i.e., I am autonomous (literally self-legislating).

1-13: What is Mill's response to the objection that happiness cannot be the rational purpose of life? P.12-13

As you say, Mill understands the objection to be based on the claim that happiness is ultimately unattainable. Of course, if happiness is unattainable then utilitarianism, which claims that happiness is the point of life, is in trouble. It is irrational to promote and pursue something that is unattainable. But Mill responds by saying that a happy life is a rational goal. Sure, unending rapture may not be attainable but one can live a happy life even though it is not one of imperishable bliss. As he explains on page 13, a happy life has moments of bliss, a few pains that don't last very long, more active pleasures than passive, and has reasonable expectations.

3-7: What tends to happen when a rational person devotes herself to using her reason to achieve happiness? P.395-396

First it is important to point out that Kant has argued that the purpose of the rational will is not to produce happiness. However, this is how most people use their freedom. But Kant claims that when the rational will is used exclusively for making oneself happy, as one's reason becomes more "cultivated," it will become less successful. In other words, if one is going to focus solely on making oneself happy with one's freedom, one is better off being a simpleton. Developing one's reason to use it only for pursuing one's happiness is self-defeating.

3-5: Why would the good will be good even if it were ineffectual? P.394

Good, though it needs to be the choice itself--not just the thought. Since the good will is good based upon what it wills, then it doesn't matter whether the will is able to accomplish anything. The power to choose to live morally is the only thing in the universe that is good without any qualification; it needs nothing added to it to ensure its goodness. In other words, it doesn't need "made the world a better place" added to it to make it better. As Kant says "Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither add to, nor subtract from, this value."

1-17: On pages 16-17, Mill's says, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility." Explain why he would claim this. P.16-17

Good. According to the gospels, Jesus commanded something along these lines: do as you would be done by. Many refer to this as the "Golden Rule." Mill thinks that utilitarianism explains well why this is a good rule. Happiness is what we all want; therefore, happiness is the good. But my happiness isn't any more important than your happiness. So, rather than being selfish and focusing on my own happiness, I should also take into account the happiness of others. And if everyone would do that, then my happiness would also be taken into account and that would be wonderful!

2-19: According to Mill, what does Mill think it means to desire something? P.39

Good. As you say, to desire something means to either see it as pleasure or as a means to pleasure. To desire something for its own sake and to view that thing as pleasure are the same. As he says on p. 39, they are "two different modes of naming the same psychological fact."

2-17: What is Mill's response to the problem posed by some people's desire for virtue for its own sake? P.36-39

No one originally desires virtue for its own sake. What happens is that we begin desiring virtue because we recognize it as a means to happiness. But over time, we lose sight of it as a means to something else and begin to desire it for its own sake. Mill says that when this happens, virtue has simply become part of one's conception of what happiness is. So, it is not that people desire something besides happiness for its own sake, but that happiness is made up of parts.

1-9: How is it possible to decide which are the best pleasures? P.7-12

It does not take a unanimous decision; rather, only the pleasure preferred by those who have enjoyed both. Contrary to what we might expect, there is no quality of goodness that inheres in pleasures. Instead, quality is the result of people's preferences. The pleasures that people prefer are the better pleasures. But notice that the preferences of people who have enjoyed various pleasures is the standard. There are many people who prefer pleasures of the body over pleasures of the intellect; but that is because they have not actually enjoyed the intellectual activities. The person who has experienced the pleasures of the intellect and the body is the person whose preferences constitute quality.

1-19: Why would someone object that the promotion of general welfare that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect? P.18-19

While the knowledge problem is troubling one for Mill, here he is focusing on the power issue (though his response takes care of both). This is an objection in a series of objections regarding the demandingness of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is too demanding, say objectors, in a number of ways. The objection is based on the improbability that one is in a position to have any positive impact upon the world at large. Unless one is the President of the United States, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to wake up in the morning and ask, "how can I make the world better today?" Most of us just don't have the power.

2-2: How does Mill respond to the objection that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine? P.21-23

While utilitarianism is a secular moral philosophy and doesn't depend upon the existence of God in anyway, it is not inconsistent with the existence of such a being. If we suppose that God exists and that God is a good and moral being, then God would want us to behave morally. How do we behave morally? We should maximize happiness (according to Mill). Therefore, God wants us to maximize happiness.

1-24: Carefully explain the sentence on p.19 that begins, "in the case of abstinences indeed..." What point is Mill making? P.18-19

Mill recognizes that there may be particular acts that maximize happiness, but which would actually decrease happiness if practiced generally. Consider lying. We are all familiar with instances where the act that maximizes happiness is to refrain from telling the truth and actually utter a falsehood. But Mill says that if we think about it in terms of class of acts, in this case truth telling versus lying, then as a general rule it is better to always tell the truth. In other words, telling your favorite auntie that her atrocious hat looks fine may be the particular act which maximizes happiness; but this act belongs to a class of acts (lying) which if generally practiced, i.e., if people tended to tell lies when they thought it would maximize happiness, would be generally injurious, i.e., would fail to maximize happiness. This distinction is sometimes presented as two different forms of utilitarianism: Act Utilitarianism: Theory: an act is moral if and only if it maximizes happiness Practice: do only those acts which maximize happiness Rule Utilitarianism: Theory: an act is moral if and only if it follows a general rule which if generally practiced would maximize happiness Practice: Do only those acts with follow a general rule which if practiced generally would maximize happiness Mill holds the theoretical side of Act Utilitarianism, but the practical side of Rule Utilitarianism.

1-18: Why would someone object that the disinterested character that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect? P.18-19

Yes, but why? You didn't answer the question. This is an objection in a series of objections regarding the demandingness of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is too demanding, say objectors, in a number of ways. Utilitarianism claims that pleasure is the good and that one ought to maximize it. But no one's pleasure is any more important than anyone else's. But this means that when one is making choices that one must not be partial, i.e., one must not treat the pleasure of any one person, say a family member, as more important than that of a stranger. This, says the objection, is unreasonable.

2-8: Suppose Mill's theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you be an organ donor? Carefully explain your answer.

Mill theory of utilitarianism is based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Sparknotes) Mill believes that happiness creates pleasure and when there is no happiness there is only suffering. According to Mill's theory, yes we should be organ donors as Mill believes in actions that make all happy are the right ones. Mill states "it is not the agent's own happiness", it is instead "for all concerned". (Mill)

1-12: Explain the objection that happiness cannot be the rational purpose of life. Why would someone make this objection? P.12

Mill understands the objection to be based on the claim that happiness is ultimately unattainable. (Most likely this is a misunderstanding on his part of something that Kant said, i.e., that there are no a priori means to ensure happiness.) Of course, if happiness is unattainable then utilitarianism, which claims that happiness is the point of life, is in trouble. It is irrational to promote and pursue something that is unattainable.

Carefully explain the drowning example on p.18. What point is Mill making? P.18-19

Mill's position is actually stronger than you present. According to Mill, saving someone from drowning (all things considered) is a moral act because it maximizes happiness. But of course, there are a variety of reasons why one might save another from drowning, e.g., expectation of reward, a sense of moral duty, love or devotion, etc. But none of these motives change the consequences of the act. The act still maximizes happiness and so is still the moral act regardless from what motive one acts. Motive, as well as character, is morally irrelevant on the utilitarian view.

2-14: How does Mill prove that general happiness is desirable as an end? P.35-36

Mill's proof that general happiness is intrinsically good: 1. the only evidence possible or required to prove that something is good for its own sake is to show that someone desires it for its own sake 2. each person desires his or her own happiness for its own sake 3. the aggregate of all people desires general happiness C. Therefore, general happiness is good for its own sake

2-1: Why would someone object that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine? P.21-23

Utilitarianism is a secular, philosophical moral theory. Like all philosophical moral theories, it attempts to discover the right and wrong making features of acts (or characters) using standards of reason and good evidence. It does not assume the existence of any supreme being nor does it assume the truth of any religious views. Many people are convinced that right and the good must be tied to a supreme being or a religious doctrine in some way. To them, utilitarianism is godless.

2-9: Suppose Mill's theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you eat meat? Carefully explain your answer.

Utilitarianism is actions are moral if they promote overall happiness. According to Mill, he believes that animals are not capable of feeling superior satisfaction in which they are not as important as humans (Mill, 2001). Mill also believes that more humans leads to more happiness (Mill, 2001). Based on Mill's theory, you should eat meat because animals are not a significant species in this world like humans are.

2-6: 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.

Whether the moral act makes me very happy or not is not relevant. You are over-valuing the happiness of the agent. The happiness that one receives from some luxury item cannot compete with the misery that could be alleviated by selling it and feeding starving people with the money. Utilitarianism is certainly not a view that espouses a "if it feels good do it" morality. It says that the moral act is the one that maximizes happiness in general. You also seem to be claiming that utilitarianism values intentions. It does not. See again the drowning example from p. 18.

1-25: Explain the objection that utilitarianism renders men cold and unsympathizing. What is Mill's response? P.20-21

Good. Because utilitarianism is basically a cost/benefit analysis form of morality, it is objected that engaging in this sort of cold calculation chills our moral feelings of sympathy. In other words, the fear is that if we practice utilitarianism, we'll do good toward others when it serves the bottom line, not because we love them. But Mill responds by saying that this objection applies to any moral theory. All moral theories say that there is a way that we ought to behave whether we are motivated to do so or not. We really don't want people simply acting on their feelings because they will only do good for others when they feel like it! Namely they will only act morally when their emotions move them and it is someone that they actually care about. True moral motivation is when we do the right thing without any sympathetic motive. Jesus said something similar when he criticized the Torah law that said "love your friends and hate your enemies." But anyone can do that! The challenge is to do good for even your enemies. We'll return to this concept when we study Kant.

2-11: To what purpose does Mill use a discussion of visible and audible in his proof of hedonism? P.35

Good. Hedonism is the view that happiness is the only intrinsic good. How would one prove this? Mill draws an analogy with "visible" and "audible." In order to prove that something is visible, one need only show that it can be seen. In order to prove that something is audible, one need only show that it can be heard. Therefore, says Mill, in order to prove that something is desirable as an end, one need only show that people desire it as an end. Everyone desires happiness as an end. Therefore, happiness is desirable (good) as an end.

2-3: Explain the objection that utilitarianism is a doctrine of expediency. What is Mill's Response? P.22-23

Good. In considering the objection, Mill points out that there are several senses of "expedient" that need to be considered. One might mean that utilitarianism is flawed because it allows the agent to break what we would normally consider moral rules in order to benefit himself. But Mill points out that his view is not any kind of egoism—the actor's happiness is not the supreme value; instead, the moral act is the one that maximizes happiness in general. One might argue that utilitarianism is a doctrine of expediency because it encourages one to break what we would normally consider to be moral rules in order to effect the best consequences. For example, telling a lie. But Mill points out that while there may indeed be cases where in the particular case, telling a lie maximizes happiness, as a general rule or way of behaving, honesty is the best policy. As a general rule, telling the truth tends to maximize happiness. And so too for other examples of "expediency".

1-14: Explain Mill's view on the constituents of a good and satisfied life. P.13

Good. Mill believes that happiness is attainable for most us and that its unattainability is often well over-stated by his detractors. He thinks the two most important "constituents" are tranquility and excitement. While he says that "the prolongation of either [is] a preparation for...the other," he also believes that either of the two can be sufficient for leading a happy life.

1-10: 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 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. P.9-10

Good. Mill claims that few people would consent to give up the opportunity for intellectual pleasures even if they were promised "the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasure". Mill thinks that this shows that most people prefer the pleasures of the intellect over the pleasures of the body. From this he concludes that the pleasures of the intellect are better than the pleasures of the body.

1-15: What is Mill's view on "all the grand sources...of human suffering. P.15

Good. Mill is an optimist about the state of the world and believes that we can, if we put our minds and wills to it, rectify most of the problems that plague the world, e.g., poverty, disease, etc. The grand sources of human suffering are conquerable, says Mill, by "human care and effort". And while he acknowledges that it may take a long time, worthy folks who devote themselves to it "will draw a noble enjoyment from the contest itself."

3-19: Explain why Kant thinks that the reason lying is wrong is not because it is not prudent. P.402-403

Good. Refraining from lying based on prudence is to look strictly at possible consequences. One might believe that telling a lie in this particular case would be in one's interest, but based on the fear of becoming seen as untrustworthy, one tells the truth. But the good will is not good based upon what it can accomplish; so adopting the maxim "I will tell the truth" because doing so leads to good consequences is not morally appropriate.

3-8: What is the true function of reason? P. 396

Good. The true function of reason is to produce a good will. The good will is the will which wills the right act for the right reason, that is, the will which chooses to do its duty because it is its duty. To will the right act for the right reason is to will the formal maxim. So the true function of reason is to will the formal maxim.

1-5: Egalitarianism: the ethical doctrine that the good or goods should be distributed equally, fairly or justly. Why is utilitarianism not egalitarianism? P.7

Good. These two views, i.e., utilitarianism and egalitarianism, are often confused because they are similar. Like the utilitarian, the egalitarian holds that pleasure/happiness is intrinsically good and that it ought to be maximized; but unlike the utilitarian, the egalitarian does not hold that the only thing that is intrinsically good is pleasure/happiness. The egalitarian also believes that justice or fairness is intrinsically good. Hence, egalitarianism maintains that goods should be distributed fairly. But utilitarianism is not a pluralism; nothing except pleasure/happiness is good for its own sake. Therefore, there is no duty to attempt to distribute pleasure/happiness in any particular way. One's only duty is to attempt to maximize it. In other words utilitarianism demands of us that we produce pleasure—wherever, however, in whomever. What's important is that we make as much as we possibly can.

1-2: What is the foundation of morals? In other words, what does the theory "utilitarianism" claim? P.7

Good. Utilitarianism is a combination of two theories: a theory of right and a theory of good. The theory of right is called "consequentialism". An act is right in so far as it tends to maximize the good. Mill's theory of good is called "hedonism". Hedonism is the view that the only thing intrinsically good is pleasure. Of course, the pleasure meant is pleasure in general. No one's pleasure is any more or any less valuable than anyone else's. If we combine them, we get this view: an act is moral in so far as it tends to maximize pleasure in general. N.B.: Mill uses "pleasure" and "happiness" interchangeably. When we study Aristotle, you'll encounter a scholar who thinks that this is a mistake.

1-16: What is Mill's view of self-sacrifice? P.16-17

I'm concerned that you are misunderstanding utilitarianism as some kind of egoism. The view is not that you can do whatever you want as long as you refrain from harming people. The view is that the moral act is the one that maximizes happiness in general--no one's happiness is any more or less valuable than any one else's. As far as self-sacrifice goes, though, you seem to have it. Because utilitarianism claims that one must perform the act that will maximize happiness, it may sometimes be the case that one must sacrifice one's own happiness in order to promote others'. Mill says "I fully acknowledge that the readiness to make such a sacrifice is the highest virtue which can be found in man." (16) But Mill is careful to point out that self-sacrifice in and of itself is not good. There is no call to sacrifice one's own happiness unless doing so is the way to maximize happiness. As he says "A sacrifice which does not increase...the sum total of happiness [is] wasted." (17)

1-6: Why would someone say that "utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy of swine?" P.7

I'm not sure "creed" is the right word here, but you seem to have the gist of it According to utilitarianism, the only thing that is good for its own sake is pleasure (happiness). This means that the ultimate point of life is then to experience pleasure. The good life for humans is the life of pleasure. But for some, this is unsatisfactory. Human beings are amazing creatures with noble goals; to say that the point of human life is to experience pleasure is to lower us to the level of animals. The swine wants nothing more than the pleasures of the body, but surely human existence is more meaningful that the pig's life! Such a view, says the objector, is "mean and groveling".

1-8: "It may be objected that many who are capable of the higher pleasures, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the lower." To what is this an objection? What is Mill's response? P.10

In response to the objection that utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy of swine, Mill argues that not only are there intellectual pleasures that humans enjoy that swine do not, those intellectual pleasures are better (higher) than physical (lower) pleasures. The evidence for this qualitative distinction is that those people who have enjoyed both physical and intellectual pleasures prefer intellectual. If we prefer them, why then do many postpone them? Mill responds that it is common for us to indulge in physical pleasures while postponing intellectual because of an "infirmity of character." We know that the intellectual is better, but we're weak willed!

3-14: Why does Kant say that his view makes sense of the scriptural commandment to love one's neighbor and one's enemy? P.399

Kant says that his view makes sense of the scriptural commandment to love one's neighbor and one's enemy. On the face of it, this command "love your enemy" is absurd. If someone is my enemy, then love is the last thing I feel for him. If I loved him, then he wouldn't be my enemy! I cannot simply decide to stop hating someone and instead love him. Neither am I able to simply decide to stop loving someone. Emotions are not the product of the will; they are beyond my control. So love based in emotion is not commandable. But on Kant's view, there is nothing laudable about pathological (emotion based) love anyway. When I do something nice for someone because I love him, it doesn't have any moral worth. But when I treat everyone morally because he or she is a person who deserves respect, then I am acting morally. Treating everyone with respect is a moral kind of love and this kind of love can be commanded. Therefore, when Jesus said "love your enemy" he did not mean "love" as an emotion, because loving in this sense is neither commandable nor commendable. Instead, he meant "love" as in "treat morally."

3-3:Why are moderation, self-control, and sober deliberation not unconditionally good? P.393-394

Kant uses these three in particular because other philosophers, e.g., Aristotle, have argued that they are unconditionally good. Kant points out that this is not so. Instead, it is only the will to act rightly (the good will) that is unconditionally or unqualifiedly good. Suppose that I am an evil person. Am I more able to accomplish my evil acts if I am impulsive and rash or if I am moderate and calm? Kant thinks the latter. Being able to moderate my passions allows me to be a better villain. It makes me more dangerous. As Kant says, "the cold blood of a scoundrel makes him not only far more dangerous, but also immediately more loathsome in our eyes than he would have been taken to be without it." (394)

3-4: How is a good will good? P.393-394

Kant's moral theory is the very opposite of Mill's in some ways. Kant says that the good will is good based upon what it wills and not upon what it can accomplish. The good will is good because it wills (chooses) rightly. The only thing in the universe that is good without any qualification or limitation whatsoever is the power to choose to live morally.

2-7: Suppose Mill's theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you cheat on your final exam? Carefully explain your answer.

Mill asserts that the "principle support of all social well-being" is truth. In addition, he claims that virtue and the "cultivation of sensitive feelings" are both high degrees of usefulness and benefit to humanity. As a result, anything that violates these higher forms of good for temporary individual good (such as telling a lie to get over some embarrassing situation) should be avoided. Anything that would, by our own conduct, harm trustworthiness and the "transcendent expediency" of virtue for short term gain, is not gain at all but loss. As a result, though the short-term benefits of cheating on a test may seem beneficial, the long-term consequences and harming of that person's virtue would deem it unwise. Because of this, Mill (and utilitarianism) would tell us to not cheat on an exam. It is important to note that Mill does allow for some exceptions to this "sacred" rule. For example, if the withholding of information in a particular situation could result in saving an individual from great unmerited evil than it should be done. However, these situations are very rare and must be done within certain limitations and weighed to determine the benefits of the opposing "utilities". The situation regarding cheating on a final exam does not fit within the parameters of these exceptions and thus must be avoided.

2-22: Explain what Mill means when he says, "Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole." P.38

Mill claims that the only thing we desire for its own sake is happiness. But what is happiness? What content does it have? What do you think of when you think of happiness? I think of spending time with my wife, cooking, drinking wine, hiking; I think of playing music with my band; I think of engaging in interesting conversations about life and human existence with my colleagues and students; I think of listening to Beethoven's 9th Symphony; I think of completing some difficult goal of self-improvement that I set for myself; etc. Mill says that all of these things are parts of happiness for me. Happiness is not some vague concept, but real things that we desire for their own sakes.

2-5: What is Mill's response to the objection that there is no time to calculate consequences before acting?

Mill points out that the experience of past generations tells us what things are useful and which actions tend to promote happiness. The objection might be a good one if we are forced to assume "general idiocy" to go along with utilitarianism. Fortunately, the wisdom of past generations has been passed down to us in the form of rules of morality. In other words, Mill is claiming that the basic common sense rules of morality were formed from experience and represent prescribed actions which tend to result in good consequences and proscribed actions which tend to result in bad consequences.

3-12: Kant says that to be beneficent where one can is a duty. What problem does he see with this? P.398

No, it need not be self-serving to lack moral worth. According to Kant, if I help others simply because I love them, then my act lacks moral worth. Anybody can do things for people they love! That's easy. Morality lies with doing good things because it is the right thing to do, irrespective of whatever feelings one may have. In order for an action to have moral worth, it must be the right act and it must done for the right reason. According to Kant the right reason is "because it is my duty." So while it is my duty to help others in need, it is often the case that I am motivated to help others because I am sympathetic with them. Kant imagines a person with such kindness of spirit that he is moved to help others out of his love for his fellow human beings. But an action done solely from emotion lacks full moral worth. Imagine what would happen if this gentle soul lost his love for others. Would he still help them? He wouldn't if the only reason he was helping them before was because he was inclined to do. In order to be a good will, I ought to help others who are in need because it is the right thing to do. Some days it will also be the case that I want to help them, but other days I will not want to. When duty is my motive I will do it regardless.

3-20: Explain what Kant means on P.402 when he says, "since I have robbed the will of all impulses that could arise for it from following some particular law, nothing remains but as such the universal conformity of actions with law, which alone is to serve the will as its principal. P.402

No, not just false promises. This is the only principle that should guide human action. Every time I exercise the will, i.e., make a choice, I utilize a maxim. Most of my maxims are aimed at accomplishing something, i.e., bringing about some consequence. Let's call this sort of maxim a material maxim. But Kant says that is not an appropriate maxim for a good will since the good will is not good based upon what it can accomplish, i.e., consequences. So what sort of maxim should I adopt if not one based on consequences? What Kant offers is what we'll call the formal maxim. The formal maxim says roughly that I will only adopt material maxims that could also serve as universal laws for everyone else at the same time. So it acts as sort of a super maxim, screening the material maxims I am motivated to adopt to satisfy my desires. But the formal maxim or universal law that I am considering is not a law that everyone should follow; it just needs to be the case that everyone could follow it while I live according to my material maxim.

3-9: In order to clearly illuminate the concept of duty, which kind of acts does Kant focus upon? P.397

Not simply ulterior motives, but any act where the motive lacks the motive of duty is not morally worthy. It doesn't matter whether the motive is selfishness or compassion--the only morally worthy motive is "that it is the right thing to do". According to Kant, since the good will is not good because of what it accomplishes, the appropriate motive for the good will is "because it is in accordance with duty." But how best to illustrate this? Imagine acts that are your duty to perform but for which you also have an immediate desire. When that is the case, it is hard to tell why you performed the act. But then imagine losing the desire to perform the act. Would you still perform it? Would you still do it because it is the right thing to do even you lacked a desire? When that happens, the motive of duty is more perspicuous and so it is these acts upon which Kant focuses.

2-23: What is Mill's proof for the claim that no one desires anything as an end except happiness? P.36-41

Not that it will make you happy, but that it is happiness for you. Mill says "The ingredients of happiness are very various, and each of them is desirable in itself." (36) The story seems to go something like this: originally, our conception of happiness is fairly simplistic—probably limited to physical pleasure. Over time, we realize that there are some rather obvious things that serve as means to pleasure, e.g., money, power, and being virtuous. But at some point a curious thing happens; rather than desiring money, power or virtue simply as a means to happiness, we come to desire it for its own sake. At that point, Mill says that those things have become what happiness is for us. In short, Mill's view is that anything which one desires for its own sake is happiness for the one who desires.

3-13: What is required in order for an act to have moral worth or moral content? P.397-399

Ok, let's see if we can simplify this. Moral worth attaches to an instance of willing, i.e., a choice. An instance of willing always involves two parts: 1) an act, and 2) a motive. So in order to an instance of willing to be morally worthy, what must be the case for (1) and (2)? ...No. Passion, on Kant's view, is completely and utterly morally irrelevant. Actions done from some sort of passion rather than the motive of duty lack moral worth. All actions have two parts: the act itself and the motive that prompts. Both are included in willing. So in order for some action to be an instance of morally worthy willing, not only must it be the right act, but it must also be done for the right reason. How ought we to act? We ought to act in accordance with duty. What should motivate me to perform the act in accordance with duty? That it is my duty. In other words, we should do the right thing because it is the right thing.

3-6: Why is the purpose of the rational will not happiness? P.394-396

Ok, you have the correct answer here, but you seem to be carrying over ideas from Mill and trying to make them stick to Kant. Kant is no way interested in promoting general happiness. The consequences of our acts, according to Kant, are not morally relevant. His view is the opposite of Mill. Why is the purpose of the rational will not happiness? Kant claims (without much in the way of argument) that whatever the purpose of practical reason is, it will be best suited to accomplish that purpose. But the rational will, i.e., the exercise of deliberative practical reason, is not very good at achieving happiness. Kant believes that human beings would be quite a bit happier if we didn't have practical reason. Imagine if instead of having free will, we lived simply by instinct like the other animals. Kant thinks we would be much happier. Therefore, since practical reason is not particularly well suited to accomplishing happiness, it cannot be what it is for.

2-20: According to Mill, what is the best way to promote happiness? P.38

On p. 38 Mill says "[utilitarianism] 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." In other words, Mill believes that the best way to promote general happiness is to not worry about promoting general happiness. Instead, concentrate on being a good, virtuous person

3-11: Kant says that to preserve one's life is a duty. What problem does he see with this? P.397-398

Right. In order for an action to have moral worth, it must be the right act and it must done for the right reason. According to Kant the right reason is "because it is my duty." So while it is our duty to refrain from suicide, there is also an immediate inclination to continue living. I refrained from suicide this morning because I don't want to be dead! But for Kant, that the only reason I refrained from suicide was because I did not want to be dead makes my choice devoid of moral worth. What if I lost the desire to live? Would I just kill myself? Desires are fickle and are not under my control. Rather than being a slave to my desires, I should be choosing to live because it is the right thing to do and I should continue to choose to live whether I desire to live or not.

3-10: Explain the example of the shopkeeper. What is Kant trying to demonstrate? P.397

Right. In order for an action to have moral worth, it must be the right act and it must done for the right reason. According to Kant the right reason is "because it is my duty." The shop keeper treats everyone fairly, but he does so because it is in his best interest to do so. That is to say, the reputation of being fair and honest is in his best interest. So, while he performs the right act, he does so for the wrong reasons, i.e., self-interest instead of duty.

3-2: Why does Kant claim that the only thing good without limitation is a good will? P.393-394

Right. Most things that we think of as good need something added to them in order to ensure their goodness. Money, intelligence, and power are classic examples. All three of things are good, but only if they are possessed by a good person. If possessed by a bad person, then they are not good since they aid an evil person in his evilness. Money, intelligence, and power need something added to them to ensure their goodness; they need a qualification. The qualification in question is "possessed by someone with a good will." But the good will needs no such qualification. It is good all by itself. Think of the good will as stamped "Guaranteed Good!"

3-1: What is the only thing that is good without limitation? P.393

Right. The good will is good without anything added to it. It needs no further qualification. The good will needs nothing added to it to ensure its goodness. It is guaranteed good! Anything possessed by a good will is also guaranteed good; we don't have to worry about whether money, intelligence, or power will be good if possessed by a good will. We know that they are good in her hands.

1-4: Egoism: the ethical doctrine that morality has its foundations in self-interest. Why in utilitarianism not egoism? P.7

Right. Utilitarianism is a combination of hedonism and consequentialism. Hedonism is the view that the only thing that is intrinsically good (good for its own sake) is pleasure. But the pleasure that is good is not anyone's in particular; instead, it is pleasure in general. Pleasure is good wherever, however, in whomever. My pleasure is good, but it is no more or less good than anyone else's. Therefore, it would be immoral of me to only produce my own pleasure, i.e., be an egoist.

2-4: Why would someone object that utilitarianism is flawed because there is not time to calculate consequences?

So I wake up in the morning and I have to make a choice: do I get out of bed and go to work or do I sleep in. Because I'm a good utilitarian, I am committed to making the choice that will maximize pleasure. In one column, I list all of the pleasures associated with going to work and subtract all of the pains; in the other column, I do the same for staying in bed. I get a net figure for each column and recognize that going to work (because of long-term consequences) has the best "bottom line" of pleasure minus pain. But of course, by now I'm late! So now I have to decide whether I am going to take the time to shower before work or whether I can just splash some water on my face and run. Once again I begin listing pleasures minus pains in one column and comparing with its opposing column. At some point this becomes ridiculous. If we did this sort of calculus before every action, then rather than actually doing anything, we would spend our entire lives simply calculating! We can make this objection even more powerful by pointing out that spending inordinate amounts of time calculating does not maximize happiness!

1-1: What is the "ignorant blunder" that Mill wishes to guard against in his description of utility. P.6

The ignorant blunder that Mill's is attempting to guard against is the idea that utility signifies practicality and/or usefulness as opposed to pleasure/happiness. Many times, we use the term utility as a way to describe functionality. Mill, on the other hand, contended that utility is an act that invokes the greater good for the greatest numbers. Right. Mill is guarding against the colloquial use of the word "utility" where it is opposed to pleasure. If I were to describe something as "utilitarian" to you, you would most likely take me to mean that it is useful, but lacking in luxury. But utilitarians do and always have meant "utility" to be synonymous with "pleasure."

2-10: What is the only thing that is 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. P.35

To say that something is good as an end is to say that it is good for no reason--valuable in and of itself. Utilitarianism holds hedonism--pleasure/happiness is the only thing good for its own sake. But of course, here in Chapter 4, Mill has argued that anything which is desired as an end is in fact happiness. That is to say, happiness just is whatever someone desires for its own sake.

1-21: What is Mill's response to the objection that the promotion of general welfare that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect? P.18-19

The objection is based on the improbability that one is in a position to have any positive impact upon the world at large. Unless one is the President of the United States, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to wake up in the morning and ask, "how can I make the world better today?" Most of us just don't have the power. But Mill points out that there really isn't any such thing as the world's happiness. The happiness of the world is made up of the happiness of people. All of us are in a position to make people happy even if it is only a very small few. Consider whose happiness it is that you can affect and then do so positively. Mill's view is best captured by an old environmental slogan: think globally, act locally.

2-16: What problem for Mill's theory does virtue pose? P.36-38

The problem need not be with virtue specifically; virtue is simply the example that Mill himself uses. The problem could also be with wisdom, love, beauty, power, even money! The problem arises from the way that Mill has proven that happiness is intrinsically good. Explain why that leads him into a bit of a quandry that he has to argue himself out of.

1-11: 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..." P.10

This section is still in the context of Mill's response to the objection that utilitarianism is a "doctrine worthy of swine." Mill has responded to this objection in several ways; first he pointed out that human beings enjoy pleasures which animals cannot, i.e., pleasures of the intellect. He then claimed that intellectual pleasures are quantitatively better than physical pleasures. Not satisfied with this point, Mill further claimed that intellectual pleasures are qualitatively better, that is, better in kind, than physical pleasures. But what evidence can be offered for the claim that intellectual pleasures are qualitatively better? Mill says the evidence is that those who have enjoyed both physical and intellectual pleasures prefer intellectual pleasures. In fact, those who have experienced the highs and lows of the intellect value the intellect higher than the body. This implies that it is in fact better to be an intellectual being, even an unsatisfied one, than it is to be a fool. The fool doesn't know any better; he prefers his way of life. But the intellectual being understands the fool's pleasures and still prefers his own. Hence, the life of the mind is superior.

3-15: What does it mean to act on a purely formal, a priori, principle of volition? P.400

To act on a purely formal, a priori principle of volition is to give oneself a maxim that is not based in any way on consequences or the way the world happens to be. The good will is good based upon what it wills not based upon the contingency of the world. But Kant believes that the only such principle is the formal maxim: I will always act such that my act could serve as a universal law.

1-20: What is Mill's response to the objection that the disinterested character of general welfare that utilitarianism demands is unreasonable to expect? P.18-19

You appear to be struggling to maintain the distinction between the two different objections here and Mill's two different responses (questions 18-21). This objection is part of a pair of objections Mill considers here that challenge the demandingness of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism claims that pleasure is the good and that one ought to maximize it. But no one's pleasure is any more important than anyone else's. But this means that when one is making choices that one must not be partial, i.e., one must not treat the pleasure of any one person, say a family member, as more important than that of a stranger. This, says the objector, is asking too much of us in regard to proper motivation. But Mill's response to this objection is to clarify that his view is a kind of consequentialism. Consequentialism says that an action is right as it tends to maximize the good. From what sort of character one acts is just not relevant in his view. One can maximize happiness lovingly or one can maximize happiness grudgingly. Character and motive are morally irrelevant. Only consequences matter.

3-16: What does it mean to act with respect for law? P.400-401

You say, "you obey the law of the land". No. Kant is not interested in the "law of the land". He is always and only discussing moral law. What laws may happen to be put into place by this or that civil authority are all morally irrelevant. To act with reverence for law means doing what is one's duty simply because it is one's duty. Willing rightly (being a good will) is the only thing in the universe that is good without any sort of qualification or limitation. Willing rightly is based on willing itself and is not based in any way upon consequences. Therefore, the appropriate motivation for the good will is that something is its duty. Wills are by definition rule makers; but rules that are formulated to satisfy desires do not inspire us as wills. The only thing that can really get us "down on our knees" so to speak is the idea of law pure and simple. According to Kant, the notion of willing an objectively necessary law, that is, one that stems from my will and holds for all rational beings, inspires reverence in a good will. The good will that is also an imperfectly rational will (like me and you) will also accept this reverence for law as a command.

3-18: What sort of law must determine the will if the motivation is to be strictly free of consequences? P.402

You were doing ok until the last sentence. Kant is not recommending that one do what is prudent. Instead, morality demands that I only act in ways that could be consistently universalized. Every time I exercise the will, i.e., make a choice, I utilize a maxim. Most of my maxims are aimed at accomplishing something, i.e., bringing about some consequence. Let's call this sort of maxim a material maxim. But Kant says that is not an appropriate maxim for a good will since the good will is not good based upon what it can accomplish, i.e., consequences. So what sort of maxim should I adopt if not one based on consequences? What Kant offers is what we'll call the formal maxim. The formal maxim says roughly that I will only adopt material maxims that could also serve as universal laws for everyone else at the same time. So it acts as sort of a super maxim, screening the material maxims I am motivated to adopt to satisfy my desires. But the formal maxim or universal law that I am considering is not a law that everyone should follow; it just needs to be the case that everyone could follow it while I live according to my material maxim.