Abstract

This article focuses on Part III of Tarrant’s paper, ‘Utilitarianism, education and the philosophy of moral insignificance’. His argument that Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures appeals to non-utilitarian values is rejected on the grounds that he misconstrues Mill’s concept of‘content’ and fails to give an adequate critique of Mills attempt to distinguish between the quantity and quality of pleasures. An improved criticism is offered, and it is argued that utilitarianism fails through the dependence of happiness itself upon non-utilitarian values. It is concluded that utilitarianism would devalue the role of liberal arts subjects in sensitising pupils to the problematic nature of human happiness.