Mill's Utilitarianism
- Created by: lucy._.hart
- Created on: 05-10-20 20:20
View mindmap
- Mill's Proof of Utilitarianism
- Untitled
- Premise 2 - general happiness is good to the total (aggregate) of all persons
- criticism - fallacy of composition
- something which applies to each part doesn't apply to the whole
- Russell's sailor example
- "every girl loves sailor"
- doesn't want everyone else to be happy because want their own happiness with their sailor
- fallacy - we can't decide each other's happiness
- criticism - fallacy of composition
- premise 1 - our happiness is desirable because we desire it
- criticism 1 - equivocation (Moore)
- two meanings of 'desire'
- 1. desirable - we desire what we want
- 2. desirable - what is seen as desirable
- not everyone's desires are desirable e.g. murdering someone
- two meanings of 'desire'
- criticism 2 - ought is gap
- you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'
- fallacy because moving from 'matters of fact' (is) to 'matters of value' (ought)
- Mill's error - humans are guided by happiness therefore we ought to make moral decisions based on happiness
- you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'
- criticism 3 - naturalistic fallacy (Moore)
- cannot define good
- good is a simple property - cannot be reduced down to 'pleasure' or 'happiness'
- cannot define good
- counter - Mary Warnock
- Mill not attempting to define 'good' or 'desirable'
- Mill uses his evidence because he is an empiricist
- Mill not attempting to define 'good' or 'desirable'
- criticism 1 - equivocation (Moore)
- Premise 3 - happiness is the ultimate goal by which we should make our moral decisions
Comments
No comments have yet been made