question

what is the purpose of this chapter

answer

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

question

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

answer

we learn about the important details of utilitarian ethics

question

the greatest happiness (Utilitarian) Principle

answer

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

question

what is the greatest happiness principle grounded on

answer

the "theory of life"

question

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

answer

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

question

the righteousness of an action is ultimately determined

answer

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

question

objection #1

answer

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

question

Mill's reply to objection 1

answer

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.

question

what pleasures are humans capable of that pigs are not

answer

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

question

who is the objector offending in objection 1

answer

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

question

what digression does mill make about objection #1

answer

mental pleasures are superior to physical.

question

what does it mean to say mental pleasures are quantitatively superior

answer

longer duration, safer, and less costly.

question

what does it mean to say mental pleasures are qualitatively superior

answer

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

question

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

answer

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

question

what do we learn from Mills reply to objection #1

answer

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

question

Objection #2

answer

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

question

mills reply to objection #2 A)

answer

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

question

what do philosophers mean by happiness

answer

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

question

mills reply to objection #2 B)

answer

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

question

what do we learn from mills reply to objection #2

answer

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

question

objection #3

answer

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)

question

which objection clashes with what prior objection? Why?

answer

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

question

Mills reply to objection #3

answer

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.

question

example about Jill saving Jack

answer

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.

question

what do we learn from mills reply to objection #3

answer

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.

question

the motive of an actor is

answer

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

question

Objection #4

answer

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.

question

mills reply to objection #4

answer

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.

question

objection #5

answer

the doctrine is a utility of "godless doctrine"

question

mills reply to objection #5

answer

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

question

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

answer

(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

question

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

answer

#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.

question

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

answer

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.

question

objection #6

answer

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

question

mills reply to objection #6

answer

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

question

example of how objection #6 is wrong

answer

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

question

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

answer

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

question

objection #7

answer

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

question

Mills reply to objection #7

answer

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

question

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

answer

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

question

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

answer

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

question

an act utilitarian (AU)

answer

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

question

for the AU moral rules

answer

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

question

a rule utilitarian (RU)

answer

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

question

objection #8

answer

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

question

mills reply to objection #8

answer

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.

question

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

answer

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."

Mill Ch. 2 (What Utilitarianism is) – Flashcards

Unlock all answers in this set

Haven't found what you were looking for?

Search for samples, answers to your questions and flashcards