Prolegomena 5 (2):165-177 (2006)
This paper is a reply to Jonathan Riley’s criticism of my reading of Mill (both published in the Philosophical Quarterly 2003). I show that Riley’s interpretation has no textual support in Mill’s writing by putting the supposedly supporting quotations in their proper context. Secondly it is demonstrated how my reading is not incompatible with hedonism. Mill’s use of the concepts of ‘quality’, ‘quantity’, and ‘pleasure’ are explained and illustrated. I conclude by considering whether the possible redundancy of Mill’s quality/quantity discussion would be problematic
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Significance of Tendencies and Intentions in the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill.Ville Kilkku - 2004 - Utilitas 16 (1):80-95.
Hutcheson's Deceptive Hedonism.Dale Dorsey - 2010 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (4):445-467.
Utilitarianism.John Stuart Mill - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. Oxford University Press.
Mill V. Miller, or Higher and Lower Pleasures.Steven D. Hales - 2007 - In Steven Hales (ed.), Beer & Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.
J.S. Mill and the Diversity of Utilitarianism.Daniel Jacobson - 2003 - Philosophers' Imprint 3 (2):1-18.
Interpreting Mill's Qualitative Hedonism.Jonathan Riley - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (212):410–418.
Added to index2009-07-15
Total downloads95 ( #52,270 of 2,152,217 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #399,478 of 2,152,217 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.