Mill Ch. 2 (What Utilitarianism is)

what does Mill say about the ends of liking mental pleasures than physical pleasures

"No intelligent human being would consent to be a fool." it is better to be like socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

objection #1

"a doctrine worthy of only swine"; it tells us that the good life is a life of pig-like treasures and full of indulgence

how does objection #5 relate to the socratic dilemma about gods commands and right and wrong actions

#5 poses the question: does god command us certain act because they are good? or do we do certain acts just because god says they are good? former: morality is independent of gods commands. latter: gods commands are arbitrary, having no basis in reason.

if the objector of objection #5 means that "the revealed will of God is the supreme law of morals..."

(Divine command theory) then the utilitarian can still use her theory to interpret what is that god has revealed to mankind about ethical conduct, namely that God has revealed the truth of the utilitarian principle

what do we learn from mills reply to objection #3

in deciding whether your own conduct is morally right/wrong you must determine whether the consequences are such to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

the motive of an actor is

irrelevant to whether or not an action is morally right/wrong. the motive has much to do with whether or not the actor is a good or bad person

what do we learn from Mills reply to objection #1

1) make calculations about the goodness or badness of certain consequences, we must consider mental/physical pleasure and pain 2) our calculations should account for the fact that mental pleasures are both quantitatively/qual. superior to physical

Objection #2

A) Happiness can't be a rational purpose of human life because it isn't attainable, and B) if it is people should renounce it in order to achieve true virtue

what is the advantage of the utilitarian in that case of conflicts between moral rules

is may be invoked to decide between the conflicting obligations. this is better than the non-utilitarian moral systems having "moral laws all claiming independent authority."

what does it mean to say mental pleasures are quantitatively superior

longer duration, safer, and less costly.

what digression does mill make about objection #1

mental pleasures are superior to physical.

what pleasures are humans capable of that pigs are not

mental pleasures: intellect, feelings and imagination, the moral sentiments

what does it mean to say mental pleasures are qualitatively superior

most people who are capable of enjoying both, strongly prefer the manner of existence that employs their high faculties.

what do we learn from mills reply to objection #2

happy life is attainable, although self-sacrifice is possible, it is recommended only if it leads to an increase in the sum of total happiness

what side of the socratic dilemma would mill side with and why

he would side with the idea that god commands us to do certain actions based on the fact that they are good, and because they have the greatest net utility value.

the greatest happiness (Utilitarian) Principle

holds that are actions right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

mills reply to objection #5

if its true that god desires happiness of his creatures and that this was his purpose in their creation, than the doctrine is not only not godless, it is profoundly more religious than any other

what is the exception to the rule in mills reply to objection #6

if lying would save an individual from great and unmerited evil than is it an obvious exception

objection #6

immoral doctrine because it tells us to do that which is expedient instead of whats right

objection #8

a utilitarian is someone who will be apt to make his own certain case an exception to moral rules, and under temptation, will see a utility in the breach of a rule, greater than he will see in its observance

example about Jill saving Jack

an example of mills reply to objection #3. its saying that motive of a persons action does not make the action right or wrong, but it does tell you about the worth of that person. If jill saves jack from drowning, what she has done is morally right, whether the motive was to save him for the sake of helping him, or for some cash reward.

for the AU moral rules

are no more then rules of thumb already put in place, to be ignored whenever a certain action fails to promote greatest good

what does the theory of life says that pleasure, and freedom from pain,

are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things...are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotions of pleasure and the prevention of pain

mills reply to objection #4

bases judgement on rightness, this is correct but not a flaw in the theory: no ethical standard decides an action bc it is done by a good or bad person, or even by a brave, amiable man.

the righteousness of an action is ultimately determined

by the goodness or badness of relevant consequences, where good means pleasure and freedom from pain, and bad means pain and absence of pleasure

Mills reply to objection #3

does not propose that our duty is to act from the MOTIVE of happiness for the greatest number. it is only a TEST of whether the conduct is right or wrong in ruling. Motive has nothing to do with the morality of an action, but actually with the worth of the agent.

mills reply to objection #6

expedient=particular interest of the agent himself. but the standard promotes interests of everyone effected by our conduct. however if expedient means that which is expedient for some immediate object, but violates a rule in a much higher degree than the objection is false

objection #3

found fault with its standard as being too high for humanity, its exacting too much to require people always act from the indictment of promoting the general interests of society. (objection to objection #1)

objection #7

impractical standard bc there is no time previous to action for debating and weighing effects of any actions on the general happiness

what do philosophers mean by happiness

not a life of rapture, few moments of transitory pain, various pleasures, w/ a decided predominance of the active over the passive, and not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing. This life is a happy life and one that many people manage to attain

which objection clashes with what prior objection? Why?

objection #3 with #1 because it is saying that its asking too much from humans and the standard is set too high for humans to accomplish. However #1 compares the standard to that of a pig, which is unworthy of setting equal to the life of a human being. lol

Objection #4

renders men cold and unsympathizing, makes them regard only the hard consideration of the consequences of actions, not taking into account their moral estimate of the qualities from which the actions stemmed from.

a rule utilitarian (RU)

someone who is "slavish" to moral rules, who will advocate for moral rules even when the certain action fails to promote the greatest good

an act utilitarian (AU)

someone who sees moral rules as mere summaries of mankind's past experience as to the utility of a certain action.

example of how objection #6 is wrong

telling a lie in order to avoid some type of momentary embarrassment will in the long run hurt the agent because lies "weaken the trustworthiness of human assertion," and deprives mankind of the good involved in the greater. therefore if he is doing something expedient he isn't doing something right

what is the greatest happiness principle grounded on

the "theory of life"

objection #5

the doctrine is a utility of "godless doctrine"

who is the objector offending in objection 1

the objector is representing human nature in a degrading light, not the utilitarian

what does mill mean the rules of morality are in reply to objection #7

the positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on (mankind's) happiness; moral rules are corollaries from the principle of utility

Mills reply to objection #7

there has actually been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species. mankind has been learning by experiences the tendencies of actions, which the morality of life are dependent

mills reply to objection #8

this is a criticism of people using the standard, not of the utilitarian standard itself. Utility is not the creed to cheat your way around life and do evil in the process.

what is the purpose of this chapter

to defend the utilitarian or greatest happiness principle against its 19th century critics

what does mill say we can do in about decision making on the spot in reply #7

use certain moral rules the make quick moral judgements about the morality of a contemplated action because we can be fairly certain that such rules when applied to that certain case will tell us the to the act that leads to the best consequences for everyone

mills reply to objection #2 A)

using happiness in an unusual way: "a continuity of pleasurable excitement". Not what they mean.

mills reply to objection #2 B)

utilitarian morality does recognize in humans power to sacrifice their own greatest good for the good of others. but refuses to admit that the sacrifice of ones own happiness is itself actually good. Its good if it increases the total sum of happiness, otherwise it is a waste

what do we learn through Mill's replies to his objectors

we learn about the important details of utilitarian ethics

Mill's reply to objection 1

wrongly supposes that humans are capable of no other pleasures except which swine are capable of. He says that a beasts pleasure do not satisfy a humans concept of happiness.