New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Elizabeth Kaur

PHILOLecture8 PHI 001

Elizabeth Kaur

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Eighth Lecture This is not the full lecture as the professor did not finish going over the given slides for "Mill’s Utilitarianism" in this lecture. The second half of this "Mill’s Utilitarianism...
Intro to Philosophy
George Mattey
Class Notes
Kant, Utilitarianism, philosophy, Introduction to Philosophy, Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, General Happiness Principle, Ranking Pleasures, Quantity of pleasure, Quality of pleasure
25 ?




Popular in Intro to Philosophy

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy

This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Elizabeth Kaur on Sunday January 31, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHI 001 at University of California - Davis taught by George Mattey in Winter 2016. Since its upload, it has received 32 views. For similar materials see Intro to Philosophy in PHIL-Philosophy at University of California - Davis.

Similar to PHI 001 at UCD


Reviews for PHILOLecture8


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 01/31/16
Mill’s Utilitarianism G. J. Mattey Winter, 2016 / Philosophy 1 Kant on Happiness • Unlike the ancients, such asAristotle, Kant had given happiness a secondary role in his ethics. • He understood happiness in these terms: What is happiness? – “General well-being and contentment with one’s condition,” – “The entire satisfaction” of “one’s wants and inclinations” (Metaphysic of Morals, First Section). • Happiness, for Kant, does not coincide with moral worth, as a morally bad person could be quite happy. Kant thought that morality and happiness do not coincide. Ex.Acriminal who gets everything he wants and is content but is morally bad. •Agood will may not be conducive to happiness and is at most a condition for being worthy of happiness. Ex.Aperson who is reaching saint hood but is not content with his or her life. Kant thought the only way to match up happiness and morality is if there is an after life where the lack of happiness is made up. Utilitarianism • In opposition to Kant, nineteenth-century “utilitarian” moral theorists claimed that happiness is the sole criterion of moral worth. Goes back to an ancient notion of happiness being the basis of morality According to this theory, happiness is the only criteria for something being moral or having moral value. •Among the early advocates of this view were Jeremy Bentham and James Mill. James Mill, John Stuart Mill’s father • Their general view was that right action is action that is conducive to the production of happiness, both of individuals and of the community. The right action is the action that promotes individual or communal happiness • Utility is the property of tending to promote happiness, so utility is the criterion of a right action. Based on utility - means tendency to promote happiness • Bentham and James Mill identified happiness with pleasure and unhappiness with pain. Bentham tried to create a calculus for happiness, tried to assign numbers to various pleasures and pains - “What quantity of pain/pleasure will this promote? What is the balance?” • In Utilitarianism (1861), James Mill’s son, John Stuart Mill, presented his own version of the theory that utility determines right action. Utilitarianism • Mill begins Utilitarianism by claiming that no progress has yet resulted from all the work in philosophy directed toward finding the nature of the good. Starts the book with “How is it that we should do ethics?” • It seems desirable for the study of morals to follow the inductive method of science, which begins with particular truths. The problem with this is a problem Kant recognized. When we apply it to morality, it is hard to tell which cases are relevant; which ones fall under right and which under wrong. • On the other hand, it appears that we need some general test of right and wrong in order to determine what is right and wrong. – This is because action is directed toward an end, and we should first know what the end is before pursuing it. We can’t tell if it’s right or wrong unless we know why what was done was done. Ex. Someone was killed. This person was killed out of self defense. ➔ Right Someone was killed. This person was killed so he could be watched dying. ➔ Not so right • If the method for studying morals is not scientific, it might be intuitive. • The intuitive method searches for principles a priori. Sounds a little bit like Kant AgainstAPriori Ethics Mill directly criticizes Kant’s method. Thinks there are two defects. • Ethical theories generated by the a priori method suffer from one of two deficiencies: – They give a priori authority to what are really only ordinary ethical precepts, – They supply a general principle that is less obvious than the precepts it is supposed to support. Ex. Don’t make a promise that you don’t intend to keep.Act according to principles of Universalizability. Which one’s more easy to follow? • In either case, they have not been able to enunciate a suitable general principle of ethics. • In fact, all ethical theory rests on the idea that what motivates people is the effects of actions on their happiness. All moral principles are based on what effects they would have on our happiness. That’s what we always have in mind when we are making moral judgements; it always comes down to happiness. • Even Kant’s deductions of duties from the categorical imperative are based on the fact that no one would accept the consequences of the universal adoption of “the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct.” On “Proof” in Ethical Theorizing • Mill will attempt to elucidate the “greatest happiness principle” put forward by Bentham. • The theory does not admit of “proof” in the standard sense. • Happiness is the ultimate end of human action, and what is good is understood to be so because of its relation to happiness. • But it cannot be proved that happiness itself is good. • The best we can do is to give rational grounds to accept a comprehensive formula which includes: –All things which are good in themselves, –An account of how all other goods are good as a means to what is good in itself. • Before Mill gives these grounds, he tries to clear up some misconceptions about the “general happiness principle” that is adopted by “utilitarianism.” The General Happiness Principle • Mill’s utilitarian principle of morality applies only to actions, not to persons. The right action promotes general happiness; vice versa. •Actions are right in proportion to their tendency to produce happiness (the good) and wrong in proportion to their tendency to produce unhappiness (the bad). • Happiness itself is equated with pleasure and the absence of pain. Happiness is pleasure and absence of pain. That’s the view of Epicurious. • Unhappiness is pain and the absence of pleasure. • The “utility” of an action is thus its tendency to produce pleasure, and is not at all opposed to pleasure. I hate to cook. It’s useful. But it makes me unhappy because I hate cooking. When Mill is talking about utility, he is talking about usefulness in terms of promoting pleasure. • The “pleasure” relevant to the rightness of human action is the kind of pleasure that is distinctively human. People will say well, that principle doesn’t really capture what is human about us, there is more to life than pleasure.Aristotle would say we are motivated by the pursuit of happiness but happiness has to do with excellence and virtue, it has to do with being the best that you can be. • There are higher pleasures than those of mere sensation (which we share with non-human animals): – Of the intellect – Of the feelings and imagination You may read an imaginative work of literature and you feel pleasure doing this. It’s not sensual. It doesn’t taste good or feel warm. – Of the moral sentiments Doing a good thing. Or observing someone do a good thing. We have a lot of pleasure that are not strictly sensual. Ranking Pleasures • The greatest happiness principle operates along two dimensions of pleasure: – Quantity of pleasure, (which was attempted to be measured by Bentham) – Quality of pleasure. • Quality of pleasure can be ranked just as can quantity of pleasure. – PleasureAis preferred by all or almost all who have experienced it to pleasure B (discounting any feeling of moral obligation). Ex. I get more pleasure out of drinking better wine that I do out of drinking inferior wine. • Pleasures of the “higher faculties” are preferred over the pleasures of the lower faculties, even if they are accompanied by a good deal of discomfort. – “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (Chapter 2). • People often do not pursue pleasures that are more desirable, because they are difficult to attain, and one is easily distracted from the goal of attaining them.


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

"I bought an awesome study guide, which helped me get an A in my Math 34B class this quarter!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.