Introduction to Philosophy

18 April 2001

I. Mill

A. Higher pleasures (contentment vs. happiness)

B. Quality as well as quantity of pleasure: drug addict example

C. Emphasis on social character of Utilitarianism: “greatest good for the greatest number.”

D. Impartiality and impersonality: nobody’s happiness counts any more than anyone else’s.

II Objections to Utilitarianism (from Mill himself) and responses

A. Objection: Sets too high a standard. Response: Do not confuse rule with motive

B. Objection: Makes people cold and unsympathising. Response: Distinguish act from actor

C. Objections: Isn’t useful. Response: Most questions settled before we face them

III. Further issue for Utilitarianism: The problem of famine relief (Singer)

A. Main premise: If it is in our power to prevent something bad, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.

1. More modest version of the main premise: if it is in our power to prevent something bad, without sacrificing anything morally important, we ought to do it.

2. Example: if I’m walking past a drowning child, I should save it.

3. Distance doesn’t matter.

4. Whether others can also help doesn’t matter.

5. Notice that this is a deeply Utilitarian principle: what lies behind it is the general idea that you should increase happiness and reduce unhappiness. (On the other hand, Singer points out that you could accept the premise even if you weren’t committed to Utilitarianism.)

B. Upshot: giving away money is not charitable, generous, or supererogatory (q.v.). the distinction between duty and charity needs to be redrawn.

C. This view leads to radical implications, which might lead to objections:

1. The position is too drastic a revision of our ordinary attitudes—but when the ordinary attitudes are wrong…. Morality serves to enable people to live together in societies—but isn’t morality applicable with respect to people who live beyond our society? Morality should not be beyond the capacity of the ordinary person—but you’d be surprised what might not be beyond the capacities of the ordinary person.

2. We would have to work almost full time to relieve the great suffering—but just because we are in fact selfish doesn’t make it right.

D. Practical problems:

1. It’s the government’s responsibility, not an individual matter. Notice, however, that the people who urge this don’t really behave appropriately (actively working to change the government’s practices, for example).

2. Population control, not famine relief, will have better long-term consequences. Maybe; but then we should be dedicating ourself full time to improving population control.

3. How much should we give? Hard to say exactly; but certainly much more than most of us do now.

4. Don’t we have to know more about the facts? Not in this case.