Master this deck with 22 terms through effective study methods.
Explore John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian philosophy in detail: the role of competent judges in distinguishing higher and lower pleasures, the problem of total vs. average utility, and how secondary prin...
Interpersonal comparisons of utility raise questions about their feasibility and whether they can accurately reflect the well-being of different individuals. Additionally, there is a debate on whether utilitarianism should focus on maximizing total utility or average utility, both of which may overlook issues of distributive justice.
Average utility can lead to implausible conclusions, particularly when considering harms. For example, it raises the question of whether it is truly acceptable for a larger population to suffer less severe harms than a smaller population suffering more severe harms, challenging utilitarian intuitions.
The 'repugnant conclusion' refers to the idea that a very large population with a low quality of life could be considered better than a smaller population with a high quality of life, which poses a significant challenge to utilitarianism and raises questions about the value of human life and happiness.
Mill argues that not all pleasures are equal; he distinguishes between higher pleasures (intellectual and moral) and lower pleasures (bodily and sensual). He suggests that higher pleasures are more valuable and should be prioritized in utilitarian calculations.
Mill suggests that the opinions of 'competent judges' who have experienced both types of pleasures can help determine which pleasures are higher. However, this raises questions about the validity of their preferences and whether they are based on the quality of pleasure or other values.
The Euthyphro Problem questions whether higher pleasures are more pleasurable because they are more valuable or if they are considered valuable because they are more pleasurable. This dilemma challenges the basis of Mill's argument regarding the superiority of higher pleasures.
Mill advocates for the use of secondary principles to guide ethical decision-making, suggesting that we should appeal to these principles in most cases and only resort to utilitarian calculations when these principles conflict.
Secondary principles are general rules or guidelines that help individuals make ethical decisions without having to calculate utility in every situation. They serve as a practical approach to applying utilitarianism while addressing concerns about its demanding nature.
By using secondary principles, Mill aims to mitigate criticisms that utilitarianism is too demanding, difficult to apply, or conflicts with widely held intuitions about rights and side-constraints, making the ethical framework more accessible and practical.
The first step in Mill's proof states that utilitarianism is true if and only if happiness is the one and only thing desirable for its own sake, rather than for the sake of something else.
Mill asserts that the only way to demonstrate that something is desirable is through the existence of desire for it. This means that if people desire happiness, it must be considered desirable.
Mill claims that each individual desires their own happiness for its own sake, not for the sake of achieving something else, which supports the idea that happiness is a fundamental goal of human life.
Mill concludes that since each person desires their own happiness, happiness itself must be desired for its own sake, establishing it as a central tenet of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism often overlooks issues of distributive justice, as it focuses on maximizing overall utility without necessarily considering how that utility is distributed among individuals, potentially leading to unjust outcomes.
Utilitarianism can be seen as too demanding because it requires individuals to constantly calculate the utility of their actions and make sacrifices for the greater good, which may conflict with personal interests and moral intuitions.
Critics argue that utilitarianism can conflict with deeply held intuitions about individual rights and side-constraints, as it may justify actions that violate these rights if they lead to a greater overall utility.
Mill's utilitarianism incorporates a qualitative distinction between pleasures, emphasizing the importance of higher pleasures, whereas classical utilitarianism often treats all pleasures as quantitatively equal.
The concept of 'competent judges' is significant in Mill's philosophy as it provides a basis for evaluating the quality of pleasures, relying on the experiences and preferences of those who have engaged with both higher and lower pleasures.
Mill's view on happiness is closely tied to the concept of the greater good, as he argues that the ultimate aim of ethical actions should be to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Mill's utilitarianism implies that moral decision-making should prioritize actions that maximize overall happiness, which can lead to complex ethical dilemmas when considering the consequences of those actions on individuals and society.
Mill acknowledges the potential conflict between individual rights and utilitarian principles, suggesting that secondary principles can help navigate these conflicts while still aiming for the overall utility.
In Mill's utilitarianism, pleasure is seen as intrinsically valuable, and higher pleasures are considered more valuable than lower pleasures, leading to a qualitative assessment of happiness rather than a purely quantitative one.