Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T04:45:57.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mill’s act-utilitarian interpreters on Utilitarianism chapter V paragraph 14

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Dale E. Miller Open the ORCID record for Dale E. Miller [Opens in a new window]
Dale E. Miller*
Affiliation:
Philosophy and Religious Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
*
E-mail: demiller@odu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the fourteenth paragraph of the fifth chapter of Utilitarianism, J. S. Mill writes that ‘We do not call anything wrong, unless we mean to imply that a person ought to be punished in some way or other for doing it; if not by law, by the opinion of his fellow-creatures; if not by opinion, by the reproaches of his own conscience.’ I criticize the attempts of three commentators who have recently presented act-utilitarian readings of Mill – Roger Crisp, David Brink, and Piers Norris Turner – to accommodate this passage.

Keywords

J. S. Millact utilitarianismrule utilitarianismsanction utilitarianismblameguilt
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 47 , Issue 5 , 2017 , pp. 674 - 693
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brink, David. 2013. Mill’s Progressive Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672141.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Roger. 1997. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Darwall, Stephen. 2006. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Donner, Wendy. 2009. “Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” In Mill, 13–143. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggleston, Ben, and Miller, Dale E.. 2008. “Mill’s Misleading Moral Mathematics.” Southwest Philosophy Review 24 (1): 153–161. 10.5840/swphilreview200824131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaus, Gerald. 1980. “Mill’s Theory of Moral Rules.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58 (3): 265–279. 10.1080/00048408012341271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1981. Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, D. H. 1967. Consequences of Utilitarianism: A Study in Normative Ethics and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Daniel. 2003. “J. S. Mill and the Diversity of Utilitarianism.” Philosophers’ Imprint 3 (2): 1–18.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Daniel. 2008. “Utilitarianism without Consequentialism: The Case of John Stuart Mill.” Philosophical Review 117 (2): 159–191. 10.1215/00318108-2007-035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, David. 1965. Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198241973.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, David. 1977. “Human Rights and the General Welfare.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (2): 113–129.Google Scholar
Lyons, David. [1976] 1994. “Mill’s Theory of Morality.” Reprinted in Rights, Welfare, and Mill’s Moral Theory, 47–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, David. [1978] 1994. “Mill’s Theory of Justice.” Reprinted in Rights, Welfare, and Mill’s Moral Theory, 67–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, David. [1982] 1994. “Benevolence and Justice in Mill.” Reprinted in Rights, Welfare, and Mill’s Moral Theory, 109–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. [1832–3?] 1984. “On Marriage.” In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by Robson, J. M., vol. XXI, 35–49. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. [1833] 1969. “Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy.” In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by Robson, J. M., vol. X, 3–18. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. [1843] 1974. In A System of Logic. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by Robson, J. M., vol. VII–VIII. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. [1859] 1972. “Letter to William George Ward.” In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by Robson, J. M., vol. XV, 646–650. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. [1861] 1969. In Utilitarianism. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by Robson, J. M., vol. X, 203–259. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. [1872] 1972. “Letter to John Venn.” In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by Robson, J. M., vol. XVII, 1881–1882. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. and Grote, George. [1837] 1977. “Taylor’s Statesman.” In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by Robson, J. M., vol. XIX, 617–647. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Dale E. 2010. John Stuart Mill: Moral, Social and Political Thought. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Robson, John M. 1969. “Textual Introduction.” In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by Robson, J. M., vol. X, cxv–cxxxix. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Piers Norris. 2015. “Rules and Right in Mill.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 53 (4): 723–745. 10.1353/hph.2015.0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar