History of Ethics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

History of Ethics

Description:

History of Ethics Section 4 John Stuart Mill s Utilitarianism – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:116
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 17
Provided by: bloo59
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: History of Ethics


1
History of Ethics
  • Section 4
  • John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism

2
John Stuart Mill
  • Best interpreted as a rule-utilitarian, adhering
    to moral rules not as mere generalizations of
    beneficial deeds but as an ideal moral code.

3
Mills Utilitarianism
  • The goal of life and also the standard of
    morality are lives of happiness, lives, that is,
    as exempt as possible from pain and as rich as
    possible in enjoyments
  • actions are right in proportion as they tend to
    promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce
    the reverse of happiness (see note 1 final
    slide of this Section).

4
Mills Rule-utilitarianism
  • Since it is not single actions that can be said
    to tend to promote anything, but rather types of
    actions, this account of rightness is best
    interpreted as saying that it is types of
    actions, such as actions complying with a rule or
    practice, which are made right or wrong by what
    they tend to promote.

5
To consider
  • Distinguish between act-utilitarianism
    rule-utilitarianism.

6
Pleasures
  • Unlike Jeremy Bentham, Mill compared pleasures by
    quality as well as quantity.
  • It is far from clear that this move is consistent
    with keeping pleasure ( the absence of pain) as
    the sole criterion of a good life.

7
But
  • Mill can consistently defend introducing
    secondary right-making rules, resorting to his
    primary criterion to resolve clashes between
    them.

8
Proof of the Desirability of the General Happiness
  • Just as the only proof that an object is visible
    is that people actually see it, the only proof
    that anything is desirable is that people
    actually desire it.
  • But each person desires their own happiness, so
    happiness is a good accordingly the general
    happiness is a good for people in general (see
    note 2 final slide of this Section).
  • Besides, happiness is the sole object of desire,
    for nothing is desired which is not either a
    means to happiness or a part of happiness.
  • Happiness must then be the sole end of human
    action, and so its promotion is the test of
    conduct the criterion of morality (see note 3
    final slide of this Section).

9
Some objections
  • (1) Desirable is not comparable to visible,
    as visible just means able to be seen,
    whereas desirable means fit to be desired,
    is used of what there is reason to desire. So his
    argument seems to move fallaciously from facts
    about desire to value-claims about desirability.
  • (2) Even if each person desires his or her own
    happiness, it does not follow that everyone
    desires the general happiness, let alone that the
    general happiness is desirable.

(For further objections, replies to those
objections, see Mills Proof in Sec. 4, History
of Ethics Chapter.)
10
Reply to (1)
  • Although Mills attempted proof confronts some
    objections, its not as obviously a fallacy as it
    seems
  • (1) Being able to be desired is at least a
    necessary condition of being desirable. Further,
    if, as Mill thinks he can show, only one thing is
    actually desired, if, as nearly everyone
    assumes, something or other is desirable, then
    this will have to be the one thing that can be
    desired (for nothing else is eligible) is
    desired. So his opening move need not be
    construed as a fallacy at all, although it
    depends on the vulnerable claim that only one
    thing is actually desired.

11
Reply to (2)
  • (2) The relation of the general happiness of
    society to society could be regarded as analogous
    to the relation of the happiness of one person to
    that person. Since what is desirable is what
    there is reason to desire, the happiness of
    society will be even more desirable for society
    than individual happiness is for that individual.
  • (Mill disclosed in a letter that he was not
    arguing that the general happiness will be
    desirable to each person, but rather that since
    happiness is desirable can be multiplied as the
    number of happy people increases, the aggregate
    happiness is also desirable, multiply so.)

12
Obligations
  • Mill well distinguishes obligations of justice,
    other moral obligations, morally desirable
    deeds that are not obligatory (that is,
    supererogatory acts).

13
Mill Justice
  • When discussing justice, Mill claims that
    utilitarianism embodies impartiality equality.
  • His stance on impartiality can be defended, but
    only with difficulty over the charge that
    utilitarianism permits unsatisfactory
    distributions.

14
Rejection of Paternalism
  • But
  • there is a moral case for paternalistic
    interventions, despite Mills arguments.
  • In rejecting coercion except to prevent harm to
    others, Mill condemns paternalism (constraining
    someone for their own good).

15
To Consider
  • What is at issue when paternalism is pitted
    against autonomy?
  • Explain Mills view of paternalism.

16
Notes
  • 1. Mill, J.S. (1910), Utilitarianism, On Liberty
    and Representative Government, Everyman edition
    (London J.M. Dent Sons, and New York E.P.
    Dutton Co.), p.6.
  • 2. ibid., pp. 32-33.
  • 3. ibid., p. 36.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com