Proof Of Utilitarianism Flashcards
Mills ‘Proof’
- The only evidence that a thing is desirable is that people actually desire it
- People desire happiness
- Therefore, happiness is desirable
- Each person’s happiness is desirable to that person because they desire it
- The general happiness, therefore, is desirable to the aggregate of all people
- Human desire is nothing which is not either a direct part of happiness or a means to happiness
- Conclusion: Happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end, or alternatively, the principle of utility is proved.
What type of philosophy does Mills lean towards?
Mill aligns himself with the inductive school which says that questions of right and wrong are matters of observation and experience
Mills is also an empiricist and thus believes that what is true can only be determined through what we experience with our senses - thus rejects the ‘moral sense’ because it would be so unlike our other senses and it is not observable as it has no physical correlates
all natural phenomena can be explained by natural sciences, which are observable and based on our experience of the world, it makes sense that he would apply such logic to ethics
Mill rejects the idea of ‘self-evident’ principles, however he believes that ultimate ends by their nature cannot be proven
Problems with Mills ‘Proof’ - stage one - relationship between desire and happiness
the jump from happiness of the individual to that of the aggregate is illogical - also what does the aggregate mean in this case - a group of people are not a single conglomerate entity
doesn’t prove that desire is good, assumes it (allowed based on the fact this is a continuation of Bentham?)
desireable doesn’t mean able to be desired it means more worthy of being desirable- and something being desired doesn’t prove that
Problems with Mills ‘Proof’ - stage two - happiness of individual to happiness of all
gap between egoistic and universalistic hedonism is vast
fallacy of composition: the happiness of an individual does not equal the general happiness of aggregate of individuals
Proof doesn’t convince that morality is important to begin with
Introducing that everyone’s happiness is equal doesn’t solve the fallacy of composition and isn’t part of proof
either assumes that audience is already moral and thus alienates those who are not convinced or alienates moral by considering itself the only governing principle of humanity
Problems with Mills ‘Proof’ - stage three - nothing other than happiness is desirable
to this point in proof - only proven that happiness is an end not the end
why recommend utilitarianism if they do not have the desire or the habitual willpower to be a utilitarian in practice
as people are educated to become more impartial, they will see that their lives are getting better for them
How Mills could allow for virtue on its own within the proof
associationism?
if two impressions are frequently experienced together then when one happens we come to expect the other (when we act virtuously we expect happiness)
Undercuts the idea that pleasure/ happiness are the ultimate good
Also suggests that virtue is performed for the benefit of others but this undermines the egoism of the first half of the ‘proof’ which is the foundation of the logic
The problem of a proof in general
ultimate ends cannot be the subject of proof (the only way to show yellow is to point at it, no alternative descriptor)
Mills uses ‘desirable as an end’ to mean ‘good as an end’
Mills has the added complication of the criterion of correctness and decision procedure are the same - the rule of action is confounded in the motive
It is unclear whether a moral principle can ever truely be defended with out a lot of assumptions
Problems with Mills examples of things which have inherent value outside of pleasure/happiness
money = isn’t valuable alone - it is valued for what it can provide you with
virtue = associationism - though not mentioned by mills it works
By conflating means to happiness with parts of happiness (or meansto ends) it breaks down the distinction and thus undoes the fabric of hedonism where only pleasure is valuable
What is epistemic naturalism?
The way in which we know moral claims are true is the same as the way in which we know claims of natural science are true
What is analytic naturalism?
our moral claims are synonymous with certain (highly complex) claims in natural science
if moral and natural claims are synonymous, then the claims refer to the same facts, moral claims refer to natual facts
some moral claims are knowable a priori
What does a priori mean?
knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience
What does a posteriori mean?
knowledge which proceeds from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes
Open question argument (objection to naturalism)
If N = a natural property, and we define goodness as N-ness, and then prove it to be wrong with an open ended question (ie: if jimmy is an unmarried man, is he a bachelor)
These are both conceptually the same and anyone who understands these concepts can say it is a stupid question
The same cannot be said for goodness and N-ness because their sameness is not obvious
If all moral assertions have to be as simple as the above example than there can be nothign but the most trivial conceptual analysis
How can Mills ‘proof’ best be defended?
It wasn’t actually intended as a proof but rather just a manifesto in favour of utilitarianism which attempts to show the moral principles in the best light - written not exactly to convince that utilitarianism is the only moral system but that it is A moral system with many benefits
‘On Utilitarianism’ supplements Mills other arguments for individual liberties and social justice reform with the premise that everyone matters equally
What is the fallacy of composition?
The leap in Mills’ argument that since everyone values their own happiness as an ultimate end and everyones happiness is equally valuable that general happiness is the ultimate end of the aggregate of people
