Rule Utilitarianism Flashcards
Who was John Stuart Mill?
A child prodigy philosopher who suffered a mental breakdown by the age of 20. He initially puts forward the idea of qualitative pleasure and founded Rule Utilitarianism.
What is Rule Utilitarianism?
Normative hedonistic theory which claims you should act with the rule that tends to lead to the greatest good. For instance lying would not tend to lead to the greatest good.
How does Mill define qualitative pleasures?
Lower Pleasures - physical, of the body and can be shared with animals. eg. eating a bar of chocolate
Higher Pleasures - of the mind, intellectual, specifically human only. eg. reading your favourite book.
What are the competent judges?
We can deduct whether a pleasure is higher or lower by referring to people who can competently judge pleasures. These judges are competent assessors and therefore have experienced every possible pleasure giving them the ability to have a decided preference. Mill claims those who have knowledge of a higher pleasure will always choose this over the lower pleasure making higher pleasures superior in quality.
What is Mill’s proof of Utilitarianism?
- The only evidence something is visible is that it can be seen.
- Similarly, the only evidence something is desirable is that it is actually desired.
- Each person desires their own happiness.
- Therefore each persons own happiness is desirable - the general happiness is a good we should strive to achieve.
What is the criticism of Mill’s definition of desirable in his proof of Utilitarianism?
Mill equivocates two different senses of desirable. Just because we desire something does not mean we ought to desire it. For example, sleeping in in the morning.
What is the criticism of the “Is-Ought gap” in Mill’s proof of Utilitarianism?
Scottish philosopher Hume puts forward the argument that you cannot (and should not) make a statement about what you ought to do based on what is the case. So step 4 in Mill’s proof cannot be implied from 2 and 3.
What is the criticism of the naturalistic fallacy in response to Mill’s proof of Utilitarianism?
British philosopher Moore accused anyone who infers that X is good from any proposition about X’s natural properties of having committed the naturalistic fallacy. eg. if you inferred beer is good as it is pleasant to drink alcohol. You cannot define “good” in natural terms - “good” is a simple concept which cannot be broken down. Mill tries to define good in terms of pleasure and happiness.
What is Mary Womack’s response to the criticism of Naturalistic fallacy?
Womack claims that Mill isn’t trying to define good in natural terms. Instead, Mill is taking on an empirical (what people already think) response.
