David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics 110 (2):282-310 (2000)
Utilitarianism is a “consequentialist” doctrine: that actions are right or wrong in proportion as they produce good or bad consequences. Mill’s version is also a “hedonistic” doctrine. Consequences are good insofar as they have more happiness or less unhappiness; bad, as they have more unhap- piness or less happiness; and by happiness and unhappiness, Mill means pleasure and pain. In English, the words “happiness” and “unhappiness” do not have the same connotations as “pleasure” and “pain.” “Happiness” implies feeling good about one’s life as well as feeling good. “Happiness” is found in relationships with friends and loved ones and in a sense of accomplishment. “Pleasure” seems to be something that is momentary and more sensational. But according to Mill’s psy- chology, a happy life consists in many pleasures and few pains. The happiness of relationships with friends and loved ones is reducible to the joys and satisfactions in the moments of one’s life that arise from these relationships. The happiness of a sense of accomplishment consists of the pleasurable states of consciousness that arise from a sense of accomplishment. The happiness of self-respect and the unhap- piness of self-disrespect consist of the pleasurable and painful states of conscious- ness that these involve. This reduction of happiness and unhappiness to pleasures and pains is a controversial element in Mill’s philosophy. I leave it to the reader to think about that reduction. In what follows, it will be assumed
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Patricia Kitcher (2004). Kant's Argument for the Categorical Imperative. Noûs 38 (4):555-584.
Christopher Macleod (forthcoming). Mill's Antirealism. Philosophical Quarterly:pqv072.
Similar books and articles
Fred Wilson (1982). Mill's Proof That Happiness is the Criterion of Morality. Journal of Business Ethics 1 (1):59 - 72.
Geoffrey Sayre-McCord (2001). Mill's “Proof” of the Principle of Utility: A More Than Half-Hearted Defense. Social Philosophy and Policy 18 (2):330.
Shia Moser (1963). A Comment on Mill's Argument for Utilitarianism. Inquiry 6 (1-4):308-318.
Henry R. West (1972). Reconstructing Mill's "Proof" of the Principle of Utility. Mind 81 (322):256-257.
G. W. Smith (1996). David Lyons, Rights, Welfare, and Mill's Moral Theory, New York, Oxford University Press, 1994, Pp. 224;Necip Fikri Alican, Mill's Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart Mill's Notorious Proof, Amsterdam, Rodopi B.V. Editions, 1994, Pp. Xv + 240. [REVIEW] Utilitas 8 (1):127.
Neil Cooper (1969). Mill's "Proof" of the Principle of Utility. Mind 78 (310):278-279.
D. D. Raphael (1994). J. S. Mill's Proof of the Principle of Utility. Utilitas 6 (1):55.
R. F. Atkinson (1957). J. S. Mill's "Proof" of the Principle of Utility. Philosophy 32 (121):158 - 167.
Fred Wilson (1983). Mill's 'Proof' of Utility and the Composition of Causes. Journal of Business Ethics 2 (2):135 - 155.
Dale E. Miller (2004). On Millgram on Mill. Utilitas 16 (1):96-108.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads238 ( #9,471 of 1,790,544 )
Recent downloads (6 months)85 ( #7,761 of 1,790,544 )
How can I increase my downloads?