Final Flashcards
(97 cards)
1
Q
humes, dcnr
background: natural religion
A
-
approach to religion that treats existence of God like any other question
- considering reasons and arguments to believe or not believe (going with whatever you can best argue)
- compromises those religious beliefs that any rational person can obtain using evidence and faculty of reason
- Hume’s purpose is to show that there is no possibility of natural religion.
- There are no religious beliefs that we can obtain purely by gathering evidence and reasoning about that evidence
- contrasts w/ revealed religion
2
Q
humes, dcnr
background: revealed religion
A
- God is radically different from other questions
- compromises those beliefs that can only be obtained through certain supposedly divinely inspired sources
- Ex. the Bible, the Torah, Koran.
- these religious truths are supposed to be accepted on the basis of faith
- ex. the faith that the author of the texts was God himself
- contrasts w natural religion
3
Q
humes, dcnr
the characters of the dialogue
A
philo
cleanthes
demea
4
Q
humes, dcnr
demea + the positions he represents
A
DEMEA
- Devout/Pious believer & Rationalist
- Has mixed feelings about reason-based faith- sympathizes with pure and irrational faith.
- says that we cannot possibly know the nature of God through reason because God’s nature is way beyond human capacity/comprehension
- argues for the position of religious Orthodoxy
5
Q
humes, dcnr
cleanthes + the position he represents
A
CLEANTHES
-
Religious believer & Empirical Theist-
- argues for the position of empirical theism
- the position that we come to know about God by reasoning from the evidence afforded us by nature
- argues for the position of empirical theism
- Believes it is possible to come to an understanding of God’s existence and nature by inferring it from the natural world.
- By looking at the world we can gather evidence that will allow us to draw conclusions about what God is really like.
- Believes in Natural religion possibility
- Wins the argument
- relates the universe to a machine.
- bases his belief on the argument from design
6
Q
humes, dncr
philo + the position he represents
A
PHILO (David Hume’s position)
- the philosophical skeptic + empiricist
- No tendency toward natural religion
- agrees with Demea that God is incomprehensible
- provides the most convincing arguments for this position
- delivers Hume’s OBJECTIONS to the argument from design
7
Q
humes, dcnr
The Design Argument: the argument for an intelligent designer by analogy to machines
A
The Design Argument
Cleanthes: Machine’s do not just come together by chance, they are created by a skilled human being. Just like any other machine, the universe was created by an intelligent designer.
- The world resembles a finely tuned machine.
- All machines we know of are created by intelligence (human intelligence).
- Therefore, the world must also be caused by intelligence (divine intelligence).
- God created the world, so he is the creator of the machine.
supposed to be the best cause than can be made for the claim that religious belief can be rational
8
Q
humes, dcnr
the Master Premise behind Cleanthes’ argument from analogy
A
-
Premise 1
- The universe contains machines composed of many parts carefully arranged so as to achieve some purpose
-
Premise 2 (Master Premise)
- Whenever there are many parts carefully arranged so as to achieve some purpose, the best explanation is that this was coordinated by an intelligent designer
-
Conclusion
- The universe has an intelligent designer (God)
9
Q
humes, dcnr
Philo’s three initial objections to the analogy: going beyond empiricism (what is observed), anthropomorphism, and matter as organizing itself;
A
- The analogy between machines and the universe is weak
- The world does not resemble a machine that well
- Therefore, any reasoning based on this analogy must also be weak
- Not an analogy between two separately existing entities, but between the universe as a whole and certain parts of the universe.
- Drawing the analogy between machine + universe would be similar to trying to figure out how an entire man develops by looking at how a single hair grows on his head
- A machine is part of the universe, it makes no sense to assume that one part of the universe is comparable to the whole universe just because we have not experience to other parts
- It is not true that all order in the world is a result of intelligence that we can sense
- The process responsible for the intricate order and adaptability in the case of organic bodies seems to be animal and vegetable reproduction, not design
- Why suppose that the order of the universe is like the order of man made machines, and not like the order of organic bodies/ a result of reproduction, another highly ordered system?
10
Q
humes, dcnr
anthropomorphism
A
- to think of God as like a human being, but only more perfect
- to consider any being or object in human terms is to anthropomorphize that being or object
11
Q
humes, dcnr
Demea’s reasons for mysticism/skepticism
A
Can’t let humans be a model of god- sentimented like love, hatred, and envy only make sense in our context in our position of the world.
12
Q
humes, dcnr
Cleanthes’ analogies of the “voice from the sky” and the reproducing books (Part III)
A
-
“The eyeball is like the voice”
- Supernatural explanation for why god is superior to human
- “If a voice from the heavens spoke down to all nations simultaneously, you (Philo) would have to assume that the voice belonged to an intelligent being with some design or purpose”
- Cleanthes claims Philo’s objections about the world being unlike a machine is absurd
- just because the universe is more much more awesome than any other machine, does not mean we cannot draw conclusions from the analogy
- Cleanthes claims Philo’s objections about the world being unlike a machine is absurd
-
Library of sexually reproducing books
- First books were written by intelligence, like how DNA is the blueprint of who you are, in code, like text
- No direct experience w/ a book (Iliad) being written by a human being, nor has there been an event like this book being written..
- But we have NO doubt that this book was because of an intelligent designer/author
- Biological organisms give us reason that they have an intelligent cause because they are ordered and complex
- Books cannot- two classics cannot come together to make a baby classic
13
Q
humes, dcnr
Philo’s infinite regress objection from Part IV ?
A
There is never a stopping point if we assume god created the universe.
If this is the case, who created god? Who created the god that created god? And so on + so forth
14
Q
hume, dcnr
Philo’s claim that a principle of order could lie in matter just as well as in mind
A
15
Q
hume, dcnr
Philo’s five objections in Part V concerning the limits of what such an analogy (even if legitimate) can establish about the designer (35-38)
A
- The universe is not infinite, so there is no reason to think the creator is infinite
- The universe is not perfect, so there is no reason to think the creator’s perfect
- Even if the universe is impressive maybe it was taken from other designers or there was trial and error
- Should we assume the creator has human qualities and built the earth with his hands?
- The universe might have been created by a team (polytheism)
(Limits of what Cleanthes’ analogy (even if legitimate) can establish about the designer 35-38)
16
Q
hume, dncr
Philo and Cleanthes’ counter-analogies: the universe is like an animal or vegetable
A
- Philo:
- The universe is like an animal, more so than a machine. Plants don’t just come about, DNA has an algorithm.
- Ex. acorns to oak trees
- The universe is like an animal, more so than a machine. Plants don’t just come about, DNA has an algorithm.
- Cleanthes:
- It is not like an animal- has no organs of sense, no seat of thought or reason.
- It is more like a vegetable or plant-like, a seed falls to the ground and it grows
17
Q
philos four possible sources of order
A
- Reason
- (clock or machines)
- Generation
- (animal, sexual reproduction)
- Vegetation
- (vegetables, grows through seed, acorn… there is no reason)
- Instinct
- (animal artifact… do birds reason how to build a nest? No)
Order comes out of orderly systems
18
Q
hume, dcnr
the “planet of spiders” story
A
If there was a planet of spiders, they’d assume that they were created by a spider
19
Q
hume, dcnr
Demea’s alleged skepticism vs. Cleanthes’ alleged anthropomorphism
A
- Demea:
- God exists, but is unsure what he is like
- Cleanthes:
- Demea doesn’t know what he believes in. Therefore, he is similar to an atheist
20
Q
hume, dcnr
other similarities and differences amongst the characters
A
21
Q
hume, dcnr
the conclusion
A
- Cleanthes is declared the winner of the debate
- he thinks you must believe in a future state to have incentive to be moral
- people must think they’ll be rewarded or punished.
22
Q
hume, dcnr
The Problem of Evil Argument:
A
-
Premise 1:
- If god were to exist, then extreme evil and suffering would not occur
-
Premise 2:
- But extreme evil and suffering do occur
-
Conclusion:
- Therefore, God does not exist
23
Q
hume, dcnr
The Problem of Evil Argument: God’s Three Perfections
A
- Omniscience
- The state of knowing everything
- Omnipotence
- Having unlimited/very great power
- Omnibenevolence
- All loving and infinitely good (deity)
24
Q
hume, dcnr
The Problem of Evil Argument Itself
A
The problem of evil is seen as a challenge to the common conception of God. Given that there is evil in the world, what are we to conclude about God?
- Either he…
- wishes to prevent evil and cannot
- in which case he is not infinitely powerful
- he could prevent evil, but does not want to,
- in which case he may not be infinitely good
- he simply does not know the best way to run the world
- in which case he is not infinitely wise.
- wishes to prevent evil and cannot
- Theists want to maintain that God is infinitely powerful, good, and wise- so the problem of evil poses a severe challenge to them.
- Philo tells us that so long as we admit that God is incomprehensible there is no problem here at all
- we must simply allow that while God’s infinite perfection can, in fact, be reconciled with the presence of evil in the world
- The only time the problem of evil really becomes a problem, he asserts, is when we try to claim that God is very strongly analogous to a human being.
- Hume’s real concern with the problem of evil, however, is slightly different from this traditional concern about reconciliation.
- He is not so interested in the problem as a challenge to the traditional conception of God
- INSTEAD he is in the problem as a block to any inferences that we could make about God’s moral nature.
- Says that given how much evil there is in the world- we cannot conclude that God is infinitely wise, good, or powerful
- INSTEAD that he is morally neutral- indifferent between good and evil
- The argument of design= no good
- cannot possibly work as an argument that tells us about God’s moral nature
- (and since God’s moral nature is a pretty fundamental part of God, this weakness makes empirical theism seem pretty hopeless).
- cannot possibly work as an argument that tells us about God’s moral nature
- He is not so interested in the problem as a challenge to the traditional conception of God
25
hume, dcnr
moral evil
bad things due to someone exercising their free will
(ex. having someone to blame)
THE OBJECTION TO THE PREMISES
26
hume, dcnr
natural evil
evil/suffering that can’t be pinned on a person
(ex. disease, child with cancer)
THE OBJECTIONS TO THE PREMISES
27
the positions Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo take on the Problem of Evil in Parts X and XI
-----------
28
hume, dcnr
Philo’s four sources of evil
1. Pain as a motive to action
1. Pain gives urgency to act, pleasure not as urgent
1. (Philo thinks pain should be eliminated)
2. The conducting of the world through general laws
1. Why doesn’t God intervene more? Why aren’t there miracles/exceptions to laws
3. The limited power given to everyone
1. Have just enough to survive but no pleasure
4. The inaccurate workmanship we find in nature
1. Look around the universe, nature is blind, no discernment or care
29
mill, on liberty
Chapter 1: civil or social liberty
_"the nature and limits of the power of which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual."_
* Are certain things illegitimate for the government to do? Legitimate exercise? How the government should be set up
* Ch. 1 defines civil liberty as the limit that must be set on society power over each individual
30
mill, on liberty
two ways of limiting the power of the rulers
1. _The assertion of the people’s certain "political liberties or rights."_
1. The leader had a duty to respect these immunities,
1. there was a right of rebellion if these rights and liberties were infringed
2. _Constitutional checks developed-_
1. Power distributed to protect from tyrant
2. the community or their representatives gained some power of consent over important acts of governance.
31
mill, on liberty
the tyranny of the majority
* “In a democratic republic, people with power exercise it over people without, the majority oppresses the minority"
* When the government is supported by the majority and makes policies benefiting only that majority- without regard for the rights or welfare of the rest of its subjects.
* _the concept that the majority of people can impose its will on a minority_
* Mill believes this behavior is "tyrannical" when it violates a claim that the minority has as a member of society.
* Mill says it has become accepted by major thinkers.
* When a democratic republic was developed, it was realized that the people don’t rule themselves, rather people with power exercise it over people without, the majority oppresses the minority. Thus, there must be protection for people against the prevailing public opinions, and the tendency of society to impose its values on others.
32
mill, on liberty
the tendency to legislate our values
* distribution of power: the tendency to distribute power among different people, rather than having a single tyrant/dictator/king
* assertion of certain rights and liberties: (LISTEN to recording)
33
mill, on liberty
the harm principle
* “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
* A law being made because it was public opinion that is good for a certain group of individuals, does not justify it or mean that it will be good for others
34
mill, on liberty
self-protection
the only time individuals or society as a whole can interfere with individual liberty
35
mill, on liberty
paternalism
* When government acts as father, restrictive laws that look after own self interest
* (violate property, according to the Harm Principle)
36
mill, on liberty
exceptions to the Harm Principle
-------------------
37
mill, on liberty
utilitarian justification of the Harm Principle
Mill is not justifying the claim of liberty as a abstract right, instead- he is grounding it in utility, on the permanent interests of mankind.
38
mill, on liberty
the three regions of human liberty
1. The inward domain of consciousness
1. If you don’t have freedom of speech, then you don’t have freedom of thought
2. Liberty of tastes and pursuits
1. If you want to smoke marijuana alone in your house you should, if you don’t want to wear a seatbelt you shouldn’t
3. The liberty to unite with other individuals for any purpose that doesn’t harm others
39
mill, on liberty
Chapter 2: Utilitarian (Mill’s) argument against silencing opinions
first argument
First Argument
The suppressed opinion may be true, all people are hurt by silencing potentially true ideas (popular opinion could be false)
* Argument: People may be wrong
* Response: human judgement is valuable only as far as people remain open to criticism
* Argument: Certain beliefs are better for wellbeing
* Response: Wellbeing of society is of for debate, no one (gov) is infallible
* Argument: Truth may be justifiably persecuted
* Response: It sometimes takes centuries for truth to emerge (Jesus, Socrates)
* Argument: Since dissenters are no longer put to death, no truth is extinguished
* Response: social intolerance causes people to hide their views
In the best interest of society, there are benefits to radical free speech and all should be acceptable, even if the person is the only one with their view
* If a belief is true, then it always has utility (is beneficial)
* If a belief is false, the confronting a false belief improves understanding which also has utility
40
mill, on liberty
human fallibility
* Infallible
* can’t make mistakes
* ex. people assuming they know all
* Fallibility
* capable of making mistakes
* ex. Government assuming they are infallible and know what right for everyone when they could be wrong
41
mill, on liberty
Second Argument: utilitarian (mill's) argument against silencing opinions
*Second Argument*
**Even if the popular opinion is true, if it is not debated it will become “dead dogma.”** If the truth has prejudices people will not fully understand it and will not understand how to refute objections to it. Even if objections are false, it keeps alive the truth it objects.
* Dogmatism – accepting something without even thinking it could be false
1. Understanding the truth requires hearing objections from people who don’t believe them.
2. Objectors must be given a voice to freely object to opinions, so people must understand and be able to back up their beliefs.
1. Knowing both sides helps understand the basis of opinions, and deciding if it’s something you truly believe or if objections are valid.
3. Value of liberty of thought and discussion… If a true opinion is not debated, then the opinion of the meaning may be lost
4. In a case of conflicting doctrines, perhaps the most common case is that instead of one being true and one being false, the truth is somewhere in between
“A marketplace of ideas” – Mill believes openly exchanging ideas with people is what’s rational and with cause the truth to spread
42
mill, on liberty
Why is it worthwhile to allow opinions to be expressed that we know are false?
Understanding the truth requires hearing objections from people who don’t believe them.
43
mill, on liberty
Also, aren’t some beliefs so important that they ought to be legislated?
----------
44
mill, on liberty
dogmatism
accepting something without even thinking it could be false
45
Mill on the value of reasoning/understanding and the disvalue of dogmatism
**Even if the popular opinion is true, if it is not debated it will become “dead dogma.**”
If the truth has prejudices, people will not fully understand it and will not understand how to refute objections to it. Even if objections are false, it keeps alive the truth it objects.
46
mill, on liberty
the importance of knowing both sides of an issue
knowing both sides helps understand the basis of opinions
& deciding if it’s something you truly believe or if objections are valid
47
mill, on liberty
the connection between truth and utility
--------------
48
mill, on liberty
will truth always win out in the end?
----------------
49
mill, on liberty
Chapter 3: experiments of living
* Live completely different ways and compete against each other
* Since humans are fallible (capable of making mistakes), different "experiments of living" are valuable.
* Because there are different experiments of living, there should be different opinions
* Ex. “about varieties of character, short of injury to others”
* The worth of different modes of life should be proven practical- for when anyone thinks fit to try them
50
mill, on liberty
the value of individual spontaneity
individuality is..
* essential to the cultivation of the self
* valueable because people might learn something from the nonconformists
* Discover new goods, keep alive existing goods
* Problem mills sees in society: individual spontaneity is not respected as having any good in itself, and is not seen as essential to well-being.
* Instead, majority thinks that its ways should be good enough for everybody.
* argues that while people should be trained as children in the accumulated knowledge of human experience, they should also have the freedom as adults to interpret that experience as they see fit.
* People become more valuable to themselves and also more valuable to others when they develop individuality.
51
mill, on liberty
a life of custom
* Prevents improvement- “makes all people alike
* Mills places great moral emphasis on the process of making choices, and NOT accepting customs
* He says that only people who make choices are using all of their human faculties
* “You should not live a life of custom- to live a life of custom is to live a life of bad faith” -Hume
52
mill, on liberty
character and the value of self-development
* Mill also links the desires and impulses reflected in individuality with the development of character
* “One who desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam engine has character”
* There is no one pattern for how to best live life. If a person is sufficiently developed, then their choices for how to live are best on because they’re on their own.
* A healthy society must make it possible for people to follow more than one pattern.
53
mill, on liberty
existentialist's slogan
* existence precedes essence (personal values) for humans.
* you acquire essence through radically free choices throughout your lifetime
* you create yourself/your own essence
54
mill, on liberty
bad faith
* mistakenly assuming you have a pre-determined essence (personal values)
* Accident of birthplace is no reason to think something is actually true
55
mill, on liberty
the utilitarian benefits of individuality
---------------
56
mill, on liberty
genius and eccentricity
* while genius is rare, it is also true that "Genius can only breathe free in an atmosphere of freedom."
* Unoriginal people tend to not see the value of originality, and tend to shun genius for mediocrity.
57
mill, on liberty
the value of "diversity of character and culture"
* Seeing people's dissimilarities is key in learning about one's own weaknesses.
* Diversity also lets us see the potential of combining the positive traits of different people.
* Forced conformity, in contrast, keeps people from learning from each other.
58
mill, on liberty
the two obligations we have to others
* Not harming the interest of one another or their rights
* Bear your share of the costs to make sure that other people's rights aren’t violated-
* People have the right to not be stolen from, assaulted, etc
* paying taxes
59
mill, on liberty
the knowledge and interest argument
* _Premise 1_: Government should only be in the business of protecting rights + enforcing duties
* _Premise 2_: Its impossible to violate your own rights
* _Conclusion_: You should be anonymous with your self-regarding conduct
60
mill, on liberty
self-regarding + other-regarding conduct
* Self regarding:
* Conduct that affects only you, no one else
* Ex. drinking alone in your house
* Other-regarding:
* Conduct that affects other people
* Ex. drinking in a public place
61
mill, on liberty
the rights and duties argument
* _Premise 1_: Government should only be in the business of protecting rights + enforcing duties
* _Premise 2_: It's impossible for you to violate your own rights
* _Conclusion_: You should be anonymous with your self regarding conduct
62
mill, on liberty
legislating morality and religious beliefs – e.g., Muslims and pork, Spain and non-Catholic religious practices, etc.
legislating morality and religious beliefs – e.g., Muslims and pork, Spain and non-Catholic religious practices, etc.
63
mill, on liberty
mill on "civilizing" other countries
mill on "civilizing" other countries
64
Mill, Utilitarianism
ch. 1: summum bonum; means, ends, + ultimate ends
* Summum Bonum:
* the highest good, especially as the ultimate goal according to which values and priorities are established in an ethical system.
* Means
* Ends
* Ultimate ends
* (ex/ happiness, no more means. Explanation stops)
65
mill, utilitarianism
monistic and pluralistic conceptions
* _Value monism (Monistic)_:
* 1 ultimate end
* _Value pluralism (Pluralistic)_:
* more than one ultimate end
66
mill, utilitarianism
Mill’s account of the ultimate good/end//justifying ultimate ends
* The standard for judging an act is the happiness of all people, not of the agent alone
* A person must value others happiness over there own; law + education help to instill this generosity
67
mill, utilitarianism
Mill on justifying ultimate ends
Mill on justifying ultimate ends
68
mill, utilitarianism
ch. 2: the greatest happiness principle (utilitarianism) + applications
The morally right action is the action that produces greatest expected utility (pleasure) for the greatest number of people.
Each person’s pleasure and pain should carry equal weight
69
mill, utilitarianism
happiness
pleasure and the absence of pain
70
mill, utilitarianism
utilitarianism
the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct
71
mill, utilitarianism
absolutism
the acceptance of or belief in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or theological matters.
72
mill, utilitarianism
the "doctrine worthy of swine" objection
If life is about nothing more than pleasure, aren’t you no better than a pig?
Mills argument: humans are capable of higher pleasures than animals
73
mill, utilitarianism
higher + lower pleasures
* Higher pleasures:
* what humans value more…
* ex. conversation, imagination, intellect, morality (TV, books)
* Lower pleasures:
* food, drink, sex, warmth (share with a pig)
* We share lower pleasures with pigs and other animals.
* A person would not choose to become an animal, an educated person will not choose to become ignorant. (This was mills test for determining which pleasure is better)
* “It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied- better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”
74
mill, utilitarianism
mill's test for determining which kind of pleasure is better
We share lower pleasures with pigs and other animals.
A person would not choose to become an animal, an educated person will not choose to become ignorant. (This was mills test for determining which pleasure is better)
75
mill, utilitarianism
objections to mills position on higher + lower pleasures
* Reducing the value of an experience or action to the utility/pleasure “cheapens” certain experiences.
* Mill says utility isn’t simply the measurement of the psychological feeling of pleasure, but there are different qualities of pleasure and only people with a broad range of experiences can dictate which pleasures are of higher quality
76
mill, utilitarianism
impediments to happiness: selfishness + failure to cultivate one's mind
* Mill thinks it is an exaggeration that people cannot be happy, and it would be possible for almost everyone if social and educational arrangements were different.
* Major sources of unhappiness are selfishness and lack of mental cultivation.
* Its fully in people’s capabilities to be happy, if their education nurtures the appropriate values.
77
mill, utilitarianism
mill's position on heroes and martyrs
* Martyrs:
* people who renounce happiness + must sacrifice it for some greater end
* and this must be for the happiness of the people.
* The willingness to sacrifice ones happiness for that of others is the highest virtue.
* The sacrifice itself is not good unless it promotes happiness
78
mill, utilitarianism
Does utilitarianism demand us to be too cold and calculating?
* This is though because it is concerned solely with the consequences of people’s actions, and not on the individuals as moral or immoral themselves.
* Mill states: All ethical standards judge actions in themselves
79
mill, utilitarianism
happiness as the common standard for resolving all moral conflicts
]
He says maintaining an attitude of willingness will lead a person to be tranquil about his life and prospects.
80
mill, utilitarianism
Chapter 3: What are the motives for acting on the utilitarian morality?
* Mill argues that utilitarianism has its roots in the social nature of human beings
* Ex. their desire to be in unity with other humans or their fear of other people’s disapproval
* Says that society can harbor no relations other than the master-slave relationship unless its base the principle that all people's interests have equal merit.
* Because society is currently advancing towards equality, people grow up seeing it as impossible to wholly disregard other people's interests.
* Mill argues that society could and should nourish this natural sentiment through education and law
81
mill, utilitarianism
internal + external sanctions
* Internal sanctions:
* Conscience – guilt/pride
* External sanctions:
* motivation by reward/punishment from others. (including god)
* (pleasure and pain motivate us)
82
mill, utilitarianism
circle of empathy
* Self
* Family
* Tribe/local community
* Ethnicity/religion/nationality
* Humanity
* Other sent creatures
83
mill, utilitarianism
conscience
guilt/pride
84
mill, utilitarianism
does mill overlook any motives for morality?
Does Mill overlook any motives for morality?
85
mill, utilitarianism
innate and learned concern for others
innate and learned concern for others
86
mill, utilitarianism
Chapter 4: proving ultimate ends (in morality, epistemology, etc.) LISTEN
Chapter 4: proving ultimate ends (in morality, epistemology, etc.) LISTEN
87
mill, utilitarianism
Mill’s case that we only desire happiness (as an ultimate end), and how this is supposed to be compatible with valuing, say, virtue as an end in itself
We should maximize happiness and happiness is the ultimate end??
88
mill, utilitarianism
Mill’s argument, from psychological facts or facts about human nature, that happiness should be the criterion for morality
* Argument for the greatest happiness principle
* We should maximize happiness and happiness is the ultimate end
* Premise 1: the only things we desire are means to or part of happiness (psych claim)
* Conclusion 1: Happiness is the only desirable thing
* Conclusion 2: Happiness is the criterion of morality
* ^^^^^^^ naturalities Fallacy
89
mill, utilitarianism
objections to this argument
Just because we are a certain way doesn’t mean we should be.
If its in our nature to be sinful that doesn’t mean we should be sinful. Many things we have aren’t natural but they aren’t a bad thing.
90
mill, utilitarianism
ch. 5: Mill’s five examples of justice/injustice
1. It is unjust to deprive someone of his/her legal rights
1. Has a few exceptions
2. Someone may have legal rights that they should not have- rights may be in the provision of a bad law
2. Depriving someone of something that they have the right to possess
3. It is considered just that a person receive what he “deserves” & unjust that he obtain something that he doesn’t deserve
4. To violate an agreement with someone or disappoint expectation that one knowingly nurtured
5. It is unjust to show favoritism + preference in inappropriate circumstances
91
mill, utilitarianism
justice + punishment
* Justice:
* Made up of two components:
1. The first is the desire to punish a person who has done harm.
* This desire comes from the impulse of self-defense, and the feeling of sympathy
* 2. There is an identifiable victim who suffers if justice is infringed upon
* The preservation of justice claims peace over humans
* The most primitive element is the conformity to law
* the idea of justice is often applied to areas about which we would not want legislation
* Ex. we always think it right that unjust acts be punished, even if we recognize that it would be inexpedient for courts to acts as punishers in particular cases
* Punishment:
* The limitation on the scope of the state's right to punish in particular cases has to do with practical concerns about extending the state's power, not with a sense that the person should not be punished.
92
mill, utilitarianism
perfect and imperfect duties
* Imperfect duties:
* Those that no one person has the right to require of another
* Perfect duties:
* Those that a person may demand of another
* Justice corresponds with this idea
93
mill, utilitarianism
the connection between rights + duties
* Right:
* A moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act a certain way
* someone has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of that right
* Duties:
* A moral or legal obligation; a responsibility
94
mill, utilitarianism
compelling duties and protecting rights
compelling duties and protecting rights
95
mill, utilitarianism
rights and harms to specific individuals
rights and harms to specific individuals
96
mill, utilitarianism
motives for punishment: self-defense + sympathy
* Self defense:
* The impulse comes from someone who has the desire to punish a person who has done harm.
* Sympathy
* Justice reflects the natural feeling of retaliation, expanded by sympathy and intellect to apply to things that harm society at large.
* ex. if there is an identifiable victim who suffers if justice is infringed upon.
97
mill, utilitarianism
utility as resolving conflicts of justice (e.g., with respect to conflicts over punishment, the distribution of goods, and taxation)
* Security
* Defending rights
* Extremely fundamental, people cannot do without security
* Taxes
* People disagree whether people should be paid for having more natural talents, and whether taxes should be graduated or issued at a flat rate
Justice grounded on utility is the most important part of all morality
