WEEK 11: Mill's "On Liberty" Chapter 2 and 3 and "Utilitarianism" Chapter 1 and 2

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

This week we are finishing up Mill's "On Liberty" and moving on to his more explicit treatment of ethics, "Utilitarianism." I like my students to read "On Liberty" to get a feel for how and what Mill thinks. Many students read "Utilitarianism" without context, that is, without knowing that Mill has a strong commitment to liberalism and political freedoms. When one reads the prescriptions of Mill's Utilitarianism that: the individual should act for the greatest happiness for the greatest number it can sound like something from a communist, or socialist state.

Something I want to investigate is: is there a contradiction between Mill's position in "On Liberty" and the one in "Utilitarianism"? If there is why? What are the elements in tension? On the other hand, you may think that there is no contradiction, however, then the question is: why not? Why and how can the two works be seen as somehow complimenting each other?

-Mateo Duque.

[joyash22]

          In Utilitarianism Mill addresses societies right to stop someone from harming someone else. It also states that we can prevent someone from harming oneself if it will harm others as well. If the action will only harm the individual we don't have the right to interfere. On liberty discusses the power that can be exercised by society over an individual. which to  me sounds like the same thing. I understood this concept (as I mentioned in class) to be in connection to our New York smoking laws. An individual can smoke in their own home as it only harms themselves. In public it is outlawed because it can cause harm to others. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to pass his soda restrictive laws and is meeting opposition. Drinking a super large soda in essence only harms the individual. Mayor Bloomberg is concerned about the harm that soda does to individuals spills out to the society at large due to the high cost of healthcare to care for all the problems too much sugar causes. I think that the smoking laws created much safer environments for us. With the soda ban I'm not so sure. I think if someone wanted to drink a lot of soda they would find a way. Since the ban was only on certain food establishments it would be easy to obtain large amounts elsewhere.
        On liberty on thoughts and discussions I was intrigued about all his ideas on how to obtain free thought and truth. How do we know to trust that someone is truthful and can be depended on? Mill brings the example of Cicero a famous ancient orator, in his opinion he believed to prove a belief you have to know the opposite opinion and examine it well and seek others who hold the opposite opinion to argue with. You must prove your case without a doubt. I wonder if today we give a lot of thought to our opinions. The media forms a lot of our opinions. Do we follow without proper investigation? Its hard to know what to believe in today's overloaded media. Just this past week the New York Post posted a picture on their front page of who they thought were the suspected Boston bombers. In turned out to be the wrong men. We need our media to inform and investigate for us but they need to be thorough if we are to trust them.

[Ellie]

‘On Liberty’ and ‘Utilitarianism’ by John Stewart Mill, were both intriguing, fascinating and relatable in so many ways that I could go on for days analyzing it trying to figure out and understand what is being said through them.

One thing (of the very very many) that got me thinking was Mills definition of what happiness is; “by ’happiness’ is meant by pleasure and the absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness’ is meant pain and lack of pleasure” (pg 8)

Putting aside what this ‘pleasure’ is that people seek and what this ‘pain’ is that they are trying to be ‘free’ from (because what does to be ‘free from pain’ mean anyway?) is and how one goes about defining things as being within those categories (because I have no idea, and would like to know), I’m just going to take a guess and say that the ‘pain’ is struggles that one is faced with in life (although, I really am not sure what Mill meant)

 

But maybe it’s not (struggles), because isn’t the struggles/pain that one goes through part of their experiences and therefore is a huge factor in the development of the person they are, namely, their individuality? I would think one becomes more in tune with themselves when they have a struggle to overcome and are then better equipped to become a unique individual different from the mold of the ideal person that society sets.

 

Also, if one didn’t struggle then they are less likely to be ‘unhappy’ (or dissatisfied). Unhappiness with a situation can cause a person to question, analyze and reexamine that situation and everything around it, including themselves and society. So I would think this is an example of man using their ‘human faculties of perceptions’ (pg 38) and should be an aid in helping them to avoid falling into just following the custom of others blindly.

 

Also, I don’t think that one necessarily has to be free from pain or struggles to be happy. I actually think that if one never had to struggle or go through pain then they can’t really be truly happy. If one has to struggle in order to get something, that it would make the end result that much more rewarding (and the person would achieve a higher level of supposed happiness). However, if everything was just handed to someone on a silver platter then how can they truly understand and appreciate the value of what they have (and therefore be truly happy to have it).

For example; a college education, If someone comes from a family where going to college is a given, their ‘happiness’ at being in college may not necessarily come close to the happiness felt by someone who had to overcome numerous pains and struggles to get a college education. One who struggles for an education is more aware of and understands how big of a luxury and privilege it is to receive it. Therefore, they are (usually) more appreciative, grateful and happy to have one (in contrast to someone who got one without struggling for it). The same goes for anything else, the more struggles or pain one goes through to get something the happier they are to get it.

 

(and I feel like I’m totally not expressing myself correctly and that I just sound really confusing so this likely won’t make any sense but anways..) Individuality is a byproduct of unhappiness which is a product of struggles. And struggles/pain can also result in true happiness. So I found it slightly contradictory that Mill says lack of pain (and as I interpreted that, struggles) is something that can deter happiness if it really is a part of the process that leads to happiness. Not only that, but it also helps form individuality which Mill is pro, so I’m not sure why he thinks that to be happy is to do away with pain.

I don’t know about anyone else but my struggles/pains played a huge part in helping me to become the individual that I am today and not only am I happy that I had them, I wouldn’t trade them for anything. Like seriously, if I or anyone has a pain-free/struggle-free existence, what would be the point in that? Besides, how else will you then develop and grow as a person if not by your struggles??

[elena.pronoza]

on "Chapter 3:Individuality - one of the elements of well-being"

“Genius can breathe freely only in an atmosphere of freedom. Persons of genius are by definition more individual than other people – and therefore less able to squeeze themselves, without being harmed, into any of the small number of moulds that society provides in order to save its members the trouble of forming their own character.”

Mill talks a lot about originality in chapter three of his book. At the same time, from my point of view, he insults regular people. Where is the border after that a regular person becomes a genius and the opposite? Haven’t you seen a genius person pressured to think he is a regular one and a regular person who thinks he is absolutely bright and smart in spite of him being just simple repetition of genius people who existed before him. I believe each person should be considered special and be treated according to something in which he or she is original. Telling a genius person that he is genius and giving him or her all possible rights and freedoms can lead to the result in which there is no more anything to prove. Where is the stimulus for movement if you are already a genius? Human being is built to fight for better life, and if everything is given there is nothing to reach anymore. Did you hear an adage that “genius person should be hungry”? It is an extreme but if we remember famous artists, for example, the greatest of them, lived really poor lives and become famous only after death. Most of them were misunderstood or even punished and still created masterpieces in complete lack of freedom. Even if it sounds beautiful to give freedom to genius it is not a best idea for their development.

[ivandavenny]

I have a bit of a problem with Mill's idea of opinion in an ideal utilitarian society.  On page 12, he states that after proper education and public opinion, "the individual won't be able to conceive the possibility of being personally happy while acting in ways opposed to the general good."  This seems to fly in the face of what he said in 'On Liberty', that all opinions should be allowed and considered, if only to strengthen the "correct" one.  But to make a person unable to conceive a certain thought, robs the person of that thought.  So rather than education exposing people to new ideas, it rigidly adheres to only one mode of thought?  And if people are unable to conceive a contrary thought, how are they expected to be able to be able to identify exceptions, like the ones he offers on pages 15-16, to be able to actually weigh different options?  And of course there's the question of being able to identify the "general good".  I'm sure that many had to have thought the Holocaust was for the "general good".  This idea comes up in other parts though, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there.  And I suspect this isn't the actual point he was making, but the choice of his words actually really irked me.

Another thing I didn't like was that his idea of a higher pleasure all depended on external forces (p 6).  Your happiness depends upon the happiness of those around you.  And he says earlier that the greater pleasure is simply what more people choose.  And then his idea of the pleasure greater than physical pleasures is dignity, which I would argue is a social construct, something that is always in relation to those around you.  So my pleasure depends on what other people enjoy and my dignity, which depends on social opinions.  So I have no control over my own happiness essentially?  And if you're unlucky, and the people around you suck (p 10)?  They're insane, or die early (two examples of matters of fortune society can't always be blamed for)?  Does this mean too bad, bad luck, guess you can't be happy?  I just dislike the idea that something I do for myself, let's say write a book that I wanted to write or carve a statue that I wanted to carve, can't make me happy unless it makes those around me happy, or provides pleasure for the general populace.

Also, google groups is acting really weird on my computer...

[rebecca.s]

I do not find these two articles to be contradictory. Mills specifies that individuality and personal liberty consists of doing things according to each person's individual nature so long as they do not cause harm for anyone else. In Utilitarianism, Mills discusses a society in which happiness prevails. He defines happiness as the feeling of pleasure and the absence of pain. It follows that one of the things that can bring a person happiness is following their individual nature. In Utilitarianism, Mills describes different types of pleasure. There are 'base' pleasures, which I assume mean pleasure rooted in physical satisfaction, and higher pleasure such as knowledge. Mills makes a point that people a unlikely to trade base pleasure for higher pleasure, even if it is accompanied with pain. He also says that achievement of goals is a certain type of happiness. I think that the persuit of following our nature is a similar concept to that. As in, just the very act of being true to oneself is a form of happiness, even if it is accompanied with pain (it is arguably the highest form of happiness). Some people here are making the points that pain and struggle produce happiness, and I think there is an element of truth in that (even if it's just for contrast. With greater pain we can know greater happiness because we are additionally happy not to be in pain anymore. It's like how good we feel when a bad headache goes away, even though we are just in a normal state again). Mill's idea's of individuality and utilitarianism do not contradict any of these ideas, because pain and struggle are a part of individual happiness. For example, we all know the tortured artist archetype, who suffers yet produces beautiful works of art because of it. Initially, it would seem that Mills is saying that this person would disappear in his utopic idea of society, but it would not. It would not because the tortured artist is following his nature and that in and of itself is happiness.

[Ali]

"For it is this—it is men’s opinions and feelings concerning those who disown the beliefs they deem important—that stops this country from being a place of freedom of thought."

 

            'On Liberty' by Mill examines the freedom of thought, and the manifestation of that thought into individuality. Mill argues that no one individual or governing body should be able to suppress a contrasting opinion or belief just on the basis of it's perception being "false." Interesting to point out, even though discussing different philosophies, while Descartes automatically threw out any belief if there was a hint of doubt, Mill argues that any single belief may be true despite it's "fallibility." It is through a proper discourse of differing beliefs and ideals that Mill believes not only betters the individual, but society as well. Whereas Galileo was punished for proposing a heliocentric model of the universe,  Mill would have encouraged this nonconformity and "dissent."

            Much of what Mill championed in 'On Liberty' is implicated in our present day democracy. However, their are still many flaws when it comes to this freedom of expression. This is especially certain in the context of gay marriage. As a Utilitarian, Mill may have argued for it's legalization. Yet America has only come so far in the past few decades in tackling this issue. No matter how hard society tries, their will always be a "popular opinion." Whether it be views on socialism, gay marriage, or the Muslim population, society will always find a majority opinion to be held. I appreciate Mill's idealism, however history has shown that the masses will always subscribe to a "popular opinion", and going against these notions will be met with great resistance. 

[AYGUL KULA]

John Stuart Mill “Individuality”

Mill says “Human beings should be free to form opinions and to express them openly.”  Mill says that people should be feeling free to form an opinion and express them freely as long as they don’t harm others. There should be different opinions, experiences, values and different types of characters in development of individuality. I have read an article about the Google searches in China. The article was about Chinese government and their restrictions on Google search. In order to compete and stay in the market Google accepted these restrictions.  What Chinese government wants here to have Chinese people to think as they want? If a person doesn’t know the subject that person can’t have an idea, and that would be the missing part of his/her character, individuality.

Mill says “Human nature is not a machine to be built on the basis of a blueprint, and set to do the work prescribed for it; rather, it is a tree that needs to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces that make it a living thing.”  Man should make his own plan of living with the things he likes.  Analyzing, observing and thinking are important to build individuality. Just because customs says or something is right man does not have to follow or accept that.  

[t.rivera511]

Utilitarianism, when first taught to me, and till this day, leaves me struggling. Why? I do not know whether to accept it or not. Does one have to accept it as a whole? Or can someone just simply execute its principles at a certain time and place? 

What interested me right off the bat was in the beginning where he brings up moral instinct that informs us of right or wrong. I believe he thinks that it doesn't exist but i think otherwise. Since birth we learn things through trial error, correct? A child will touch a hot stove and learn not to touch it again because what they felt wasn't good. It burned, so its bad and shouldn't be touched again.  A baby probably wont have the set words "good" and "bad" but its a feeling nonetheless. A sense. An instinct. Is it not? Even if its simple things that we interpret to be good and bad, we still have that sense. When it comes down to more complex circumstances, like killing someone, i would like to believe one knows that its bad because of the reactions of the person who is being killed. Someone screaming 'bloody murder' wont sound to nicely to the ears. Itll pierce the ear drum and one would like to silence it. The person will struggle, displaying their resistance and that would register as 'bad' since they aren't cooperating.  Its our choice to abide by this instinct, for we have freewill, and i think our freewill always will contradict this moral instinct that I'm sure we all have. 

[monise_71]

In his essays: "On Liberty" and "Utilitarism" Mill propose two different reforms based on the same principle: Utility. In certain points, I think they contadict each other.

 

    In "On Liberty", Mill urges to adopt his principle called" the Harm Priciple. According the this principle, it is acceptable to an individual to harm himself as long as he does not others. that is, the inteference of society into individual action is not justified if this given action does not affect the society. From his principle, he excludes children and backwar socities because he think they are incapable of self-governance. Thus, they need protection. Also In his defence of free speech, Mill argues that free speech is necessary for intellectual and socila progress. More over, Mill states that and action could not be restricted because it violated the moral of a given society.

 

       In" Utilitarism", Mill observes that people been unable to find a compromise the foundation of morality. He thinks that a foundation is important for morality to make sense. Because if actions are to be jugded by whether they good or bad it is necessary to define which intance is good and which on is bad. Therefore he proposes utilitarism as a potential solution to this problem  of moral thinking. He also define the purpose of morality as  to produce a particular state of the wolrd. That is, an action is morally right if it maximizes the livel of happiness of others. The probleme is based on the interference of the society in the individual action or thouhts. Thefore who who should deceide when action is good or bad?

 

 Mill argues for freedom of thought and discussion: his main claim is that this freedom will have the best utilitarian consequences. What this means essentially is that freedom of thought and discussion will most likely bring truth to light and keep fresh our perception of truths already known. But I don't the think that the truth will necessery bring happines. Also if an individual should act in orther to maximize other hapiness, therefore Mills contradic his argument on the individual freedom of speech. because Mill does not consider  giving offense as harmful to society and that why he states that and action should not be restricted because it violated the moral of a give socity. this where I think mill contradict himself in the two essays.

 

 

 

 

[andrewaalvarez10]

"By ‘happiness’ is meant pleasure and the absence of pain.." Mill says this when he is describing the Greatest Happiness principle. I don't believe that the absence of pain in part leads to happiness. I say this because the is some people out there who find pleasure in pain. I know he was just making a generality but I think that just saying the quantity of pleasure creates happiness. That is also a bit misleading because sometime pleasure is just an illusion and once that illusion is figured out it can way more uncomfortable than any pleasure you were feeling before. I don't think I can clearly define what happiness is or maybe it is the illusion of pleasure and not whole hearted and truthful pleasure. 
Back to my original point thought that pain doesn't really define pleasure nor is the opposite of it. I know that traditionally we describe pain as a discomfort and the opposite of discomfort well that is pleasure but I don't think you can traditionally look at pain in such a way, especially with how far philosophy has came throughout the years. I don't know how one define pleasure and pain, I just think it is something that Mill's overlooked and that to create a better argument for the Greatest Happiness Principle he would have to come with a better explanation for pain and pleasure.

[nadiahamidi7]

Some thoughts on Mill's "Utilitarianism"

I may be of the few, but I actually think Mill's "Liberty" and "Utilitarianism" complement each other! In Mill's "Liberty," Mill made a point that the opinion of the majority should be valued because it pleases the most. I think "Utilitarianism" follows the same notion. A lot of people (especially us Americans) may view utilitarianism as something communist or hindering individual freedom. As an American, I actually think utilitarianism is what we follow whether we're conscious of it or not! Aren't most laws in place because it applies to the well-being of the majority of Americans?

Back to the two pieces--I actually enjoyed both for their content as well as ease of read. However, what I found most interesting is in Mill's definition of happiness. In the section titled, "What Happiness Is" Mill states that the "prime requirements [for] happiness [are] mental cultivation and unselfishness" (10). I found this bit remarkable because if I were asked what happiness was, that would be the last thing to hit my mind! I'm not sure if this is my own flawed nature or whether it is an American thing, but when I think of happiness, I think of a very personal or very selfish thing. Meaning, what makes me necessarily happy is completely different to and for everyone else. Therefore, happiness is very hard to define because we each long for something else. In an attempt to make happiness something general, I would say that happiness equates safety and the basics of safety are having a stable house to live in, a stable income, constant food, and mental well-being. To me, those elements are the "basics of happiness" which individualized happiness can grow from. Once humans aren't worried about mortgage payments or grocery bills, we can start writing, watching movies, bike riding, sight-seeing, or whatever else makes us "happy." 

According to Mill, happiness is a very unselfish thing. While I said earlier that I did not view Mill's piece as any sort of "communist piece" this would be the only thing, (if any) where I can see why someone would. The slight issue I have with this theory is that from my understanding, human happiness does not come from individual pleasure but rather the opinion of the mass. When looking up a deeper definition for the term "cultivation," I encountered totally different meanings. I think it's brilliant and intentional that Mill specifically used the words, "mental cultivation." Cultivation can refer to horticulture, tillage, animal breeding, and a figurative sense such as spiritual cultivation. But what do these each have in common? Whether it's plants, soil, animals, or even spiritual, all of the things that can be "cultivated" yield brand new products (such as plants, animals, and nature in general) or for the spiritual aspect, ideas. I think Mill wants his followers to get the message that when we (individuals) communicate with the community and put aside our selfish desires (not that they're bad) we can yield a beautiful product as nature does!

I don't mean for my interpretation to sound like a "butterfly/unicorn/magical" happy ending toward something that can be dark (if you view Mill as a communist nut), but I do think Mill is sincere in his thought method for trying to make us flourish in society. He even says, "something far superior...[is] what the human species may become" (10). Now of course everything must be read in context, but I don't think Mill is a loony preaching dictator. (And who knows, maybe in a hundred years his work might be viewed just as that). Ultimately, I think Mill wants the best for society even if it means the suffering of a few.

Now here's food for thought: Let's say a woman (we'll name her Debbie after my next door neighbor) hates Hilda's dog (my next door neighbor on the other side) because the dog is spoiled rotten and won't stop barking for no reason. (This scenario is becoming uncomfortably true). Debbie always crosses over into our backyard to yell at Hilda's dog. One day, the dog was barking for so long, Debbie marched across our backyard (as she normally does) stood on one of our chairs, and told Hilda that she needs to put her dog in some sort of a training class where they teach the dog to shut up and not bark for hours. Hilda laughed it off but certainly didn't like Debbie's complain and did nothing about it. (Until now the story has been entirely true but I'm going to add a sad twist just for an example--so nobody get mad)! Tired of hearing the dog's barking especially on Saturday mornings because we all have long work weeks, Debbie marches over our backyard, and throws the dog a poison biscuit which he eats and then dies from. (Sorry for the gruesomeness)! Now that the dog stops barking, Debbie, and presumably the rest of the surrounding neighbors, are all happy. Although this would technically be utilitarianism, (because all of the neighbors wanted Hilda's dog to shut up and that's considered the happiness of the majority) it is ethically wrong, which Mill addresses in the section titled "Bad Faith." Mill asks (and then answers), "...is utility the only morality that can provide us with excuses for evil doing?...Of course not!" (17). So in the end, Hilda's dog lives and her two daughters get to play with the dog until he dies naturally. Debbie will still cross into our backyard to yell at the poor dog, and Hilda will continue to brush off her doggy son's issues with barking! (And of course my family remains physically in the middle of their drama). The end!

[imusicea92]

I think Mills interpretation in Liberty is what he would like to see happen but Utilitarianism is his way of taking a realistic view of what is going on in the world. I don't think by this meaning that they entirely contradict each other because the end goal is the same, happiness. However, his view in Liberty is that one can enjoy his life as long as it isn't harmful to others and while playing by majority rules would still support that your happiness shouldn't harm others, the idea could be overruled.  For example, the current gun issue isn't being solved by majority. I think that ties in to my  response to the post about not being able to trust the news, I wonder if we have created this monster by our own action and expectations? Look at 24 hour news, they are expected to talk even with nothing to say therefore creating a whole slew of information that's not entirely true, all because we need something to watch. 

[kingholee]

the purpose of Mill writing Utilitarianism is to correct the misconception of many people thinking Utilitarianism is a bad thing and opposition to pleasure.Mill wrote "Higher and lower pleasure" to explain why, he was using pig as an example to show that human has a higher standard of pain and pleasure and faculties than animals.

[g.dlegister]

I honestly DON'T UNDERSTAND the point of "Utilitarianism" Mill's argument on the state of society to the individual, the concept of what is best for the citizen I understand but what is the standerd of protecting the  citizen any different then censoring the citizen. Basically Mill's in his argument is stating that anything that we personally do for fun for ourselves shouldn't harm other people around us. Like Second hand smoking is a modern day example, having it banded from public areas such restaurants and parks. 

Mill's in this chapter compares nation of Europe of how the're society continues to improve while some of the nation in china stay static in motion. form my interruption this would influence how a culture can deem what is safe for this citizen or not. Just recently a few states in the United States legalized  Weed in a medical way, were about tens years ago it was consider gate way drug and was bashed on by the government. My point is, our federal government can consider what is right for us, even if we find pleasure in it or not. A lot of people find pleasure in this drug,  a lot of other people use it for medical reason and other people can't find the pleasure in it but this is a drug that does more harm then good. 

Methamphetamine and cocaine I believe are some of the few drugs that were used for medical purposes and is now consider harmful for the individual and the people they associate with. That decision is not made by the populous  itself but the federal government. My point is i got from this chapter is I don't understand or agree with why, the dictation of what is bad or good for the populous have to do with the pleasure of the individual? 

[elena.pronoza]

John Stuart Mill on "Utilitarianism", chapter 2

"It's better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

"But many people who are capable of the higher pleasures do sometimes ...give preference to the lower ones...before they devote themselves exclusively to the lower pleasures they have already become incapable of the higher ones."

Mill honestly impressed me by a bunch of interesting ideas in second chapter of the "Utilitarianism". His clarification on what utilitarianism is, opens many forgotten aspects partially disappeared with time. His talk about higher and lower pleasures is really interesting. Ideas that he expressed in the book reminded me Socrates' phrase to Alcibiades. It can be paraphrased that no one "intelligent" person will change "a gold of knowledge for the silver of sex". But Mill talks about Socrates as of a person who all his life is looking for a truth and is consequently unsatisfied. I believe Socrates was a happy person, satisfied with things he did, such as questioning people and bringing a wisdom to citizens. He was the one who definitely got a higher pleasure using Mill's words.

The second quote I put above is closely related with the first one and reflects an idea of choosing which way to live or which pleasure to have.  Is it true what  if person find himself involved in life of lower pleasures completely he cannot or will not get away or switch back to other way of higher pleasures? If I understand correctly Mills says no, if you lose "intellectual tastes" you cannot go back. If we look at this straight, life undergoes through different changes, and very often circumstances determine choices more than people determine their ways. I'm not saying we are not doing preferences at all but strict limitation exists in society preventing us from free choices. Most of choices are compromises. And "cultivation of nobility of character" is hardly achievable end in current society where mercantilism rules. In spite of the fact that Mills mentions "poverty" and "disease" as factors that prevent us from this "cultivation of nobility", I think he a little bit underestimates how much these two factors and not only them interrupt with our lives.    

[Elvira Toporova]

"There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right."(Ch.2,pg.12-13 )

These are two statements on each of which I have a comment.

As to the first: This is true and important, and there is a great difference between propositions which have been thoroughly, critically, rationally and empirically investigated by able men, and were not found to be false, and propositions which are merely believed, as in fact most propositions are when believed, because the believer feels pleased if the proposition were true, or feels scared if it were not, or believes it only or mostly because his friends or leaders say they believe it.

Mill's second statement in the above passage is also true and important, and may be restated like so: One can only give one's rational consent to propositions that state anything that goes beyond one's personal experience if they have been rationally discussed and if possible empirically investigated by able men, and have not been found to be false.

Even then one may choose to reject such propositions, and one often can do so for rational reasons, but if one chooses to agree that it is probably true, then at least one may be fairly certain that one is right to the extent that it is not probably false - provided again it was seriously discussed and investigated by able rational men who have not found it to be false, as is indeed the case with most propositions of real science, and with the propositions of no other system of human belief.

[Elvira Toporova]

Mill's "Utilitarianism"

"Yet they seldom attempt to make out a list of the a priori principles which are to serve as the premises of the science; still more rarely do they make any effort to reduce those various principles to one first principle, or common ground of obligation."(ch.1,pg. 2)

This seems to me to be at least a little doubtful. It may be that there are not many lists of moral or ethical "a priori principles" that have been drawn up, but on the other hand most religions and indeed most political parties and creeds have some sort of cathechism of moral and metaphysical first principles.

These principles may not satisfy Mill or myself, either for logical, empirical or moral reasons, but they have satisfied the majority of those who have been exposed to them, at least if they were already believers in the religion or creed reduced to those first principles.

[dahlia4808]

Mills Utilitarianism, is a little interesting , but also confusing to me. He tallks about indivuality and happiness of people and pleasures. I believe Mill is saying that we are happer when other people is at thier happiest. Why should we care what other people think or feel? Every one is unque in there own indivdual unique way. Many of us are driven to be  happy in certain way.  On the other hand many of us are misserable in other ways ,some are always like this everyday. Being happy to me is a learned experience. The pleassures we get from this varies.Mills view on Utilitarianismis is also  a bit confusing. He talks about plessure and how you can put a value or quailty on this. I disagree with this,  you cannot directly assign a value to pain or pleassure. I believe this can only be done indirectlty.

 

Dahlia

[rebecca.s]

Kant's groundwork for metaphysical morality is easily recognizable as the moral counterpart to Descartes' breakdown of logic. Essentially, they begin on the basic principle of stripping down all elements of culture and experience in order to understand the world around them through the lens of logic. Kant says on page 5 "it is of the utmost necessity to work out once a pure moral philosophy which is fully cleansed of everything that might be in any way empirical and belong to anthropology". Just like Descartes, he is attempting to strip away everything in our known world except logic itself in order to understand morality on those terms. He does this because, he argues, morality cannot be determined circumstantially and that there must be a common moral law that applies all of the time. External or additional considerations are too varied to apply to a universal moral law. Morality can only be understood if it is stripped of these and sorted out within the mind of man. This is essentially the exact same exercise Descartes when through to understand his own existence, and the exact opposite of Hume's or Mill's way of understanding the world and moral law. The Hume/Mill paradigm would necessitate that only through experience, or the experiences of people, can we understand anything to be morally right or wrong. Mill bases his concept of morality on the achievement of happiness. Kant argues that the results have nothing to do with morality, and that an action can only be determined as moral or not by the doers motivation and application to the duty of universal moral law.

[pesantezkevin]

While reading the Utilitarianism something that I thought about was the idea of right from wrong.  Can someone do something that might be seen as wrong to other, but seems right to them.  If a train is running in direction A where there is five construction workers working on the train tracks and it is going out of control and there direction B a second direction where there is one construction worker working on the tracks.  Now you are on this train and realize that the train is headed towards the five workers but only you notice a leaver that could change the direction of the train and go towards the one worker.  You are the only one who sees this leaver and all the workers on both tracks don’t see the train.  What would you do, would you save the five workers and kill the one or let the train go in its direction and kill the five workers?  This is something that someone told me they spoke about in their class.  Now in most cases some people say they would pull the leaver in order to save the five people because five lives is more than one.  Others don’t want to live with that guilt and would rather witness the accident then have to be the one who killed someone in order to save five other people.  To some the right thing would be to let the train go in its course without changing the direction of it, to others that would be wrong and the right thing would be to change its direction and save those five people. 

[stephane1]

i know i have probably said this before but Mill is like my favorite philosopher. i have read many of the other classmates post and some of you did not really get what Mill's views were on Utilitarianism, i did not get it until someone had explained it to me and also from videos from Harvard Justice. i usually refer to this chapter as "Mill on morality" instead of liberty. i also believe in utilitarianism and i support it. i you do not support Mill on Utilitariansm you most likely support Kantism which is the opposite i would say of Utilitarianism, but there is not anything wrong with that, the world need both Utilitarianism and Kantism to function and that is how i see it fit. But Utilitariansm to me is more like an ethical code and values some people choose to live by. i believe in two eyes for an eye and it's for the general good i would say. if you stab me in one of my eyes i am not just going to stab one of yours also so you can come back and stab me in my other eye, it's better if i stab you in both eyes lol. i'm serious but this is just a figurative example i do not mean that literally.

[jay]

In Utilitarianism - John talk about the prior moralists -( those that mean the foundation of traditional, customs and moral values while), cannot do without utilitarian argument mean to criticise. also with Mill he wanted you to spread that concept to other people and help share that happiness to other. he is saying that there is a common ground to what is right and wrong and we have that inside of all of us. is this what he is talking about when he say there is a formula. Mill talked  about happiness is and its important,but he want you to experience and have some prior knowledge of what it is before you are able to share. other topic I can relate to its like self sacrifice of oneself  meaning willing to give one some kind of happiness just to make others happy.

[krystalgonzalez.28]

"Its better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." (Mill, p.7)

Mill speaks a lot about moral actions and how actions are morally right if they make us happy, and actions are morally wrong if they make us unhappy.  Mill describes happiness as pleasure without pain, and if your unhappy its no pleasure and pain.  If this is Mill's definition of happiness then to sum up his quote he sees the pig as satisfied because they only need their food, sex, and more food.  This is pleasurable to a pig, and is pretty much all they need to be satisfied.  As for humans yes we also find pleasure in food, and sex, but our minds work much differently.  We seek other pleasures that satisfy us intellectually like reading, poetry, art, music, family, relationships, religion, love, etc.  I find it very hard for humans to say that they are truly happy when we are constantly seeking for more of these pleasures.  So I agree with Mill when he says it is better to be a human dissatisfied (still seeking more pleasure), then to be a pig happy with eating  and feeling good.  I'd rather spend my life going through the extreme of searching for more things to make me happy everyday, but does this technically mean that I will never be happy because I am constantly trying to satisfy my mind with different pleasures?I don't feel pain as Mill said Unhappiness is. I feel happy, but if my pleasures consist of so much because I am a human and not a simple pig, am I really happy?  

[kingholee]

In Utilitarianism, Mill talks about lower and higher pleasure, lower is for the body, the higher is about our mind, the lower one can connect us to the level of other animal like pig, because the things pigs care is eat food and have sex, I think it is really great when I read Mill wrote about this, because we human should care more than just food and sex, it was good that Mill compared the higher and lower, and right, the higher pleasure should be more important for a persons life. But I have some extra opinion on this, should we have both higher and lower pleasure, since our body are still very similar to animals, should we satisfy our lower pleasure first, then we can concentrate on achcieving the higher pleasure, that might be even better, because we wont be distract by the temptation of the lower pleasure if we already satisflied with that, then we can just focus on the higher, for example, we should try make a lot of money first, then we can no longer care the materialistic thing, and have our family taken good care of, then we can think about helping people and changing the world, Bill Gate is a good example, he made a lot of money by making software and Xbox, more than he can spend, then he donate all of them to people that need help.