Reference no: EM131118571 , Length:

The swine argument.

- The notion that morality based on pleasure is low. (criticism)

- Mill responds: - But there are higher pleasures that are specifically human and not bodily pleasures.

- He classifies pleasures such as: the pleasure of intellect, feeling, imagination as higher than others. Mill claims that they are intrinsically better, they have higher quality.

Utilitarianism

- This is the biggest objection to the critics of utilitarianism who claim that util. equals men to pigs.

- we know from experience what the higher, what the lower pleasures are; - we know that people who know both types of pleasures, consistently choose the higher ones;

- even the ones who don't know the highest pleasure (philosophy), wouldn't trade few higher pleasures for lots of low ones. This is the response to the quantitative utilitarianism;

- sense of dignity

- it makes us choose the higher pleasures;

- if we choose only lower pleasures, we have an opportunity to be completely satisfied, but if we choose higher, we will not; the lower ones are easy to satisfy and we can be fairly certain that we can satisfy them, we can obtain these pleasures easily; but the higher pleasures require work and we can't be sure that we will master what is required to obtain those pleasures (like learning to play piano or learning mathematics) - but it is better to be dissatisfied.

- Mill starts talking about the social dimension of his ethics. The pursuit of noble pleasures produces benefit to the others not only to one person.

- - Firmer statement: the pursuit of what is the highest, best is beneficial not only for one but for all.

- Mill claims here again that those who have experience of both, prefer the higher pleasures that benefit the others more than the higher pleasures that benefit only them.

- Different objections discussed:

- I. some claim that happiness is not attainable or only attainable in a small degree in this life.

- II. others claim that virtue requires giving up happiness
- The utilitarian ideal is one with the Christian ideal

- the golden rule and "love your neighbor as yourself."

- There are people who object to utilitarianism because moral sacrifice, obligations require us to give up some of our happiness. It often has to be done voluntarily by a martyr (self-sacrifice)

- So, making the sacrifices for moral obligation is compatible with utilitarianism for 2 reasons:

- such sacrifices are almost always done for the sake of others happiness, so happiness is still a principle;

- even when we make such sacrifices, we still can have the happiness in the sense of ataraxia because we loose the fear of loosing what we already decided to give up. So we preempt our passions.

- Mill makes the distinction between the rule of action and the motive for it.

- Mill: (1) it does not matter what the motive is as long as what is done is done for the promotion of the general good. (2)You are free to benefit yourself as much as you want to as long as you don't interfere with the rights of others.

- So, Mill is very liberal in his understanding of social relations in the sense of Adam Smith that individual seeking their own benefit, when this desire is moderated by reason, leads them to see that they have to benefit somebody else in order to benefit themselves.

- Chapter 5 - "The Connection Between Justice and Utility," was originally written as a separate essay, but later incorporated into this work. Critics of utilitarianism argue that morality is not based on consequences of actions (as utilitarianssuppose), but is instead based on the foundational and universal concept of justice. Mill sees this as the strongest attack on utilitarianism, and thus sees the concept of justice as a test case for utilitarianism.

- First, he argues that all moral elements in the notion of justice depend on social utility (punishment, and the notion that someone's rights were violated) - Mill's second argument is that if justice were as foundational as the other philosophers claim, it would not be as ambiguous as it is; punishment, fair distribution of wealth, and fair taxation: these disputes can only be resolved by appealing to utility.