Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Mill's Utilitariansim

kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 9:07:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have recently undertaken to re-read John Stuart Mill"s "Utilitarian." I confess that I am not well versed in philosophy. So for me to make heads or tails of this stuff is difficult. This is why I am posting here. I will post some the Quotes from Mill. I am hoping for feedback. Feel free to offer support for, or criticism of this moral code. Do you agree with Mill? Why? Why not? etc...

"All Action is for the sake of some end." (Mill Chapter 1-2)

What Utilitarianism Is: AKA The "Greatest Happiness Principle"(Mill)

"Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."

Happiness: "Pleasure, and the absence of pain"

Unhappiness: "pain, and the privation of pleasure"

"The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent"s own happiness, but that of all concerned."

"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 promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain."

Higher and lower pleasures:

"We are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small amount."

What Utilitarianism is not:

"the term (utilitarian) is ignorantly misapplied solely in disparagement, frivolity and the mere pleasures of the moment."


How Utilitarianism differs from alternatives:

"that the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent. He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble."
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 11:36:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 9:07:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have recently undertaken to re-read John Stuart Mill"s "Utilitarian." I confess that I am not well versed in philosophy. So for me to make heads or tails of this stuff is difficult. This is why I am posting here. I will post some the Quotes from Mill. I am hoping for feedback. Feel free to offer support for, or criticism of this moral code. Do you agree with Mill? Why? Why not? etc...

"All Action is for the sake of some end." (Mill Chapter 1-2)

What Utilitarianism Is: AKA The "Greatest Happiness Principle"(Mill)

"Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."

Happiness: "Pleasure, and the absence of pain"

Unhappiness: "pain, and the privation of pleasure"

"The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent"s own happiness, but that of all concerned."

"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 promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain."

Higher and lower pleasures:

"We are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small amount."

What Utilitarianism is not:

"the term (utilitarian) is ignorantly misapplied solely in disparagement, frivolity and the mere pleasures of the moment."


How Utilitarianism differs from alternatives:

"that the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent. He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble."

There's always , "I don't care about well being" or "I'm a masochist".
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:30:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 9:07:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have recently undertaken to re-read John Stuart Mill"s "Utilitarian." I confess that I am not well versed in philosophy. So for me to make heads or tails of this stuff is difficult. This is why I am posting here. I will post some the Quotes from Mill. I am hoping for feedback. Feel free to offer support for, or criticism of this moral code. Do you agree with Mill? Why? Why not? etc...

"All Action is for the sake of some end." (Mill Chapter 1-2)

What Utilitarianism Is: AKA The "Greatest Happiness Principle"(Mill)

"Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."

Happiness: "Pleasure, and the absence of pain"

Unhappiness: "pain, and the privation of pleasure"

"The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent"s own happiness, but that of all concerned."

"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 promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain."

Higher and lower pleasures:

"We are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small amount."

What Utilitarianism is not:

"the term (utilitarian) is ignorantly misapplied solely in disparagement, frivolity and the mere pleasures of the moment."


How Utilitarianism differs from alternatives:

"that the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent. He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble."

It seems that this already assumes that happiness is morally good, and unhappiness is morally not good. Where did they derive this conclusion from?
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 4:42:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It seems that this already assumes that happiness is morally good, and unhappiness is morally not good. Where did they derive this conclusion from?

Correct. Mill says "It is true that similar confusion and uncertainty, and in some cases similar discordance, exist respecting the first principles of all sciences, not excepting that which is deemed the most certain of them, mathematics; without much impairing, generally indeed without impairing at all, the trustworthiness of the conclusions of those sciences. An apparent anomaly, the explanation of which is, that the detailed doctrines of a science are not usually deduced from, nor depend for their evidence upon, what are called its first principles."

He gives a few examples...

"Whatever can be proved to be good, must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof. The medical art is proved to be good, by its conducting to health; but how is it possible to prove that health is good?"

Likewise he asks "What proof is it possible to give that pleasure is good?"

Your correct that Utilitarianism works on the assumption that happiness is moral.

What type of proof would satisfy you?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 4:43:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There's always , "I don't care about well being" or "I'm a masochist".

Is that a contention haha, or just a personal rejection.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 5:28:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 4:43:23 PM, kasmic wrote:
There's always , "I don't care about well being" or "I'm a masochist".

Is that a contention haha, or just a personal rejection.

Both
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 6:17:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 4:42:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
It seems that this already assumes that happiness is morally good, and unhappiness is morally not good. Where did they derive this conclusion from?

Correct. Mill says "It is true that similar confusion and uncertainty, and in some cases similar discordance, exist respecting the first principles of all sciences, not excepting that which is deemed the most certain of them, mathematics; without much impairing, generally indeed without impairing at all, the trustworthiness of the conclusions of those sciences. An apparent anomaly, the explanation of which is, that the detailed doctrines of a science are not usually deduced from, nor depend for their evidence upon, what are called its first principles."

He gives a few examples...

"Whatever can be proved to be good, must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof. The medical art is proved to be good, by its conducting to health; but how is it possible to prove that health is good?"

Likewise he asks "What proof is it possible to give that pleasure is good?"

Your correct that Utilitarianism works on the assumption that happiness is moral.

What type of proof would satisfy you?

One that is compleatly logically justified. I see some of the points of Utilitarianism, but it is still lacking
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 6:42:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
One that is compleatly logically justified. I see some of the points of Utilitarianism, but it is still lacking

How could it be logically justified?

Lacking in what way?

Every moral system has implied premises. I cant think of any that has the "justification" that you are looking for.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 7:02:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 4:43:23 PM, kasmic wrote:
There's always , "I don't care about well being" or "I'm a masochist".

Is that a contention haha, or just a personal rejection.

Doesn't mean I don't want a response though.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 7:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mill's utilitarianism is one of my favourites, mainly because his utilitarianism is compatible with universalisation and is applicable to political philosophy, human rights and legislature.

However, I disagree with him on two things:

1. I disagree that the motive is completely irrelevant to the morality of an act. I contend that the intention of maximising utility does matter, as intending to maximise utility is a universalisable rule that would, in the end, maximise utility itself.

2. Happiness consists of more than just pleasure and the privation of pain. Aside from pleasure, happiness also consists of a deeper sense of 'eudaimonia' (fulfillment) that is more than just pleasure. Likewise, unhappiness is more than just pain, it includes boredom, discontent and monotony. In short, my view of happiness is more pluralistic than Mill's.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 7:41:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 7:02:41 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 4:43:23 PM, kasmic wrote:
There's always , "I don't care about well being" or "I'm a masochist".

Is that a contention haha, or just a personal rejection.

Doesn't mean I don't want a response though.

Hmmm, perhaps you could articulate your contention more fully instead of me having to strawman what you mean by masochist.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 7:47:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 7:12:38 PM, Philocat wrote:
Mill's utilitarianism is one of my favourites, mainly because his utilitarianism is compatible with universalisation and is applicable to political philosophy, human rights and legislature.

However, I disagree with him on two things:

1. I disagree that the motive is completely irrelevant to the morality of an act. I contend that the intention of maximising utility does matter, as intending to maximise utility is a universalisable rule that would, in the end, maximise utility itself.

As far as motive having effect on utility I agree. But that is still weighing the utility.

"Classic utilitarianism is consequentialist as opposed to deontological because of what it denies. It denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences, such as whether the agent promised in the past to do the act now. Of course, the fact that the agent promised to do the act might indirectly affect the act's consequences if breaking the promise will make other people unhappy. Nonetheless, according to classic utilitarianism, what makes it morally wrong to break the promise is its future effects on those other people rather than the fact that the agent promised in the past." (1)

2. Happiness consists of more than just pleasure and the privation of pain. Aside from pleasure, happiness also consists of a deeper sense of 'eudaimonia' (fulfillment) that is more than just pleasure. Likewise, unhappiness is more than just pain, it includes boredom, discontent and monotony. In short, my view of happiness is more pluralistic than Mill's.

I suppose I would say that Mill agree's that there are other desires then just pain or pleasure, but that the end of those desires is either pain or pleasure.

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 8:05:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 7:12:38 PM, Philocat wrote:
Mill's utilitarianism is one of my favourites, mainly because his utilitarianism is compatible with universalisation and is applicable to political philosophy, human rights and legislature.

However, I disagree with him on two things:

1. I disagree that the motive is completely irrelevant to the morality of an act. I contend that the intention of maximising utility does matter, as intending to maximise utility is a universalisable rule that would, in the end, maximise utility itself.

2. Happiness consists of more than just pleasure and the privation of pain. Aside from pleasure, happiness also consists of a deeper sense of 'eudaimonia' (fulfillment) that is more than just pleasure. Likewise, unhappiness is more than just pain, it includes boredom, discontent and monotony. In short, my view of happiness is more pluralistic than Mill's.

Mill's idea of Pain and Pleasure varies, but I think it's most sensible when it is similar to Bentham's. Being that Pain and Pleasure basically stand for negative and positive mental states, which includes all kinds of deeper senses of the words.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 12:40:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 6:42:33 PM, kasmic wrote:
One that is compleatly logically justified. I see some of the points of Utilitarianism, but it is still lacking

How could it be logically justified?

Lacking in what way?

Every moral system has implied premises. I cant think of any that has the "justification" that you are looking for.

Well, it assumes that happiness is moral good, but that is exactly what is the question. What is the basis of right and wrong? If it is happiness, then the question still remains, why is happiness the absolute basis of morality?

Also, it lacks a basis for some kind of obligation to follow this basis of morality.
It is also implied that morality would then be subjective if Utilitariansim was true, because happiness is not an objective unchanging standard, and would vary. Because of this, morality would also be non-obligatory, and lack to be a standard. Because of this, right and wrong would be mere opinion.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 4:37:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 12:40:10 AM, Alpha3141 wrote:

Actually Utilitarianism subscribes to objective morality.

http://www.ucs.mun.ca...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 5:43:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 7:41:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 9/1/2015 7:02:41 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 4:43:23 PM, kasmic wrote:
There's always , "I don't care about well being" or "I'm a masochist".

Is that a contention haha, or just a personal rejection.

Doesn't mean I don't want a response though.

Hmmm, perhaps you could articulate your contention more fully instead of me having to strawman what you mean by masochist.

If people desire pain or suffering, how are you to include them in your utilitarian evaluation.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 3:52:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 9/2/2015 5:43:38 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 7:41:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 9/1/2015 7:02:41 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 4:43:23 PM, kasmic wrote:
There's always , "I don't care about well being" or "I'm a masochist".

Is that a contention haha, or just a personal rejection.

Doesn't mean I don't want a response though.

Hmmm, perhaps you could articulate your contention more fully instead of me having to strawman what you mean by masochist.

If people desire pain or suffering, how are you to include them in your utilitarian evaluation.

Fascinating question. Let me think on that.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...