1 Mill Argues That Pleasures Differ Not Only Quantitatively But Also ✓ Solved

1. Mill argues that pleasures differ not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively. Explain the difference between the two and why Mill makes this assertion. What does pleasure have to do with morality? How does Mill say we determine which pleasures are higher quality pleasures? (Hint: discuss role of "competent judges").

Do you agree that seeking and promotion of higher qualitative pleasures solves the "pig philosophy" criticisms of earlier versions of hedonism? 2. Mill is an empiricist. What role does his empiricism play in his moral theories? What differences result from this approach as opposed to Kant's rationalist approach?

Here you'll want to contrast consequentialism with deontology as two distinct approaches to theorizing about how humans should act all things considered. Concrete illustrations will help your answer. 3. Mill offers a "proof" for the claim that the principle of utility lies at the base or foundation of moral theory. Why does Mill claim that this principle does not admit of formal proof but rather he can only give us reasons that will incline our intellect toward believing it's true?

Explain thoroughly Mill's "proof" for both parts of the principle of utility (the hedonism and universalism parts-- hint: analogy and discrimination). What do you think of his "proof"? Appendix A HSM/220 Version Associate Level Material Appendix A Final Project Overview and Timeline Final Project Overview You are the executive director of an established not-for-profit, community-based organization provider that offers high-quality educational, vocational, and training services to various segments of the local population. In response to the increasing dropout rate of high school students in the local community and a worsening financial situation at the local school district, the organization is considering the opportunity to offer basic skills and vocational training programs in the community.

The purpose of this new program is to equip high school dropouts with necessary skills needed to gain potential employment opportunities. As an executive director, justify the reasoning behind this new program and develop a complete launch plan, including a budget and consideration of environmental factors. You must determine how data will be used to support the new program and consider human resources issues affecting this new program. The organization has these issues to consider: · The local economy situation is depressed due to steady job losses resulting from employers relocating to other cities and communities that offer better economic incentives to employers. As a result, local property taxes that support funding of high school programs have declined singifantly in recent years.

The reduction has caused the local school district to lose significant financial resources to retain good teachers or fill vacant teachers’ positions. · In the last two years the high school dropout rate had climbed to 15% from 5%. The local school district along with state agencies decided to sponsor and fund new training and vocational programs for high school dropouts in order to provide these high school dropouts with necessary skills needed to gain potential employment opportunities. The total funding available for this program is ,600,000. · The projected number of eligible high school dropout students in year one: 1,000 · The projected number of eligible high school dropout students in year two and thereafter: 2,000 · This organization needs to plan for the recruitment and hiring of experienced trainers and other highly skilled technical staff to start the proposed programs.

The tight financial resources available makes finding qualified personnel a challenge. Also, after hiring the appropriate staff, it is critical for the executive director to think proactively in order to motivate the staff and use an appropriate appraisal and reward system. · If the organization decides to provide these comprehensive training programs, the following financial data must be considered: Operating Expenses: Per Year Rent 5,000 Utilities 0,000 Office supplies ,000 Equipment/lease ,000 Transportation and travel 0,000 Outside consultants 0,000 Overhead costs 0,000 Personnel expenses: Annual Salary Number of FTEs Executive director 0, Training supervisor , Trainers , Administrative coordinator , Administrative staff , Employee-related benefit expenses @ 25% 0,000 · All costs excluding the salary of the executive director and training supervisor will be allocated according to this formula: · 60% to basic skills program · 40% to vocational program · In year two and thereafter, when the number of eligible high school dropouts increases to 2,000, personnel expenses (excluding executive director and training supervisor) and operation expenses will increase by 50%.

Funding will increase accordingly. Based on the background provided, prepare a 1,400- to 1,750-word paper that addresses the following: · A Statement of Opportunity : Provide a clear and concise statement of the opportunity to be addressed. The opportunity statement should be no more than two or three sentences and, in many cases, a single, well-crafted sentence is sufficient. · Impact on Organizational Structure: Discuss the importance of an executive director’s vision in turning the challenge into an opportunity. Identify the organizational structures that would be most affected by this situation and explain the impact on each organizational structure identified. · Community Environmental Factors : Consider and discuss how the environmental factors such as competition, financial resources available, and employment may impact the opportunity of starting this new training program.

Explain the risks or benefits that the organization would face by attempting to capitalize on the opportunity. · Human Resources : Explain what human resource plans or initiatives are needed to manage the strategic goals associated with the identified opportunity. · Budget : Develop various specific budget profiles that achieve optimal allocation of organizational resources to manage the opportunity. · A line-item budget for total cost in year one, two, and thereafter · A functional and program budget to calculate total costs per high school student dropout in year one Final Project Timeline You should budget your time wisely and work on your project throughout the course. As outlined below, some assignments and CheckPoints in the course are designed to assist you in completing your final project.

If you complete your course activities and use the feedback provided by the instructor, you will be on the right track to successfully complete your project. · Suggested in Week One : Read the Final Project Overview and Timeline in Appendix A. · Suggested in Week Two : Complete part three of the outline after completing the CheckPoint and assignment for Week Two. · Due in Week Six : Complete the budget portion of your final project after completing the Week Six CheckPoint and assignment. The format for the final project will be the same. · Suggested in Week Seven : Complete part three of the outline after completing the reading in Week Seven. · Due in Week Nine : Submit your final project. John Stuart Mill Notice there is no “s†at the end of his name; he is not a cereal.

Mill: starts with speculation Why has there been no agreement about the foundation of ethics, even though it’s been discussed for years? E.g. Aristotle: Golden Mean Kant: Categorical Imperative Test Hobbes: human-made contract that aims at peace Plato: harmony in soul and state None of these seems generally acceptable; but without a solid foundation we cannot be sure of any of our obligations. ** normative ethics justified by theoretical ethics Mill Hmm says Mill, despite the uncertainty among philosophers about the ultimate principle, there is wide spread agreement about what duties we actually have (generally speaking). Help people in need don’t lie keep promises There must be a guiding hand at play; one that is at work in all of these theories that came before This guiding hand is the principle of utility (greatest happiness principle) Utility/Consequences Despite their statement otherwise, all philosophers (says Mill) are really concerned with utility, happiness, consequences.

They all believe it, but they all went astray, e.g., Kant: highest good is the good will; is rationalism led him astray. He was confused about what happiness is and that is why he rejected it (too lazy to do anything example) and he was confused about consequences. (262) Utility/Consequences e.g., Aristotle: practiced teleology so was concerned with consequences. Highest good is happiness but he, too, was confused about what happiness is; he rejected pleasure as being what happiness is– Plato; highest good is well-being/contentment. But he was misguided because he focused within and morality should focus without– Hobbes: highest good is one’s own happiness and we get that by having a solidly run society aimed at peace.

Consequentialist; confused about happiness and human nature. Mill; epistemology (like Hume) FOUNDATIONALISM THE GIVEN IS UTILITARIANISM OR THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY So, Mill must 1. explain and clarify the principle of utility and defend it against objections that might have been made by these previous philosophers and that were made against Bentham’s version. (3 ways to handle criticisms; reject criticism, accept criticism and change view to accommodate it, accept criticism and give up view.) 2. provide an argument for his theoretical claim that utility is the foundation of duties. Mill (NO S) Like Bentham (empiricist); morality should be grounded in empirical *(observable) fact. We must observe what human beings are ultimately motivated by and take this into account in our moral view.

VALUE JUDGMENTS ARE PRIOR TO MORAL JUDGMENTS; FIND OUT WHAT PEOPLE VALUE AND YOU HAVE FOUND THE FOUNDATION OF MORALITY (WHAT GROUNDS MORALITY) Mill (NO S) What is right? What is wrong? What is the highest good (summum bonum) what is the foundation of morality? For Mill, these questions are asking the same thing. The highest good is whatever people seek as an end (ultimate end).

For human beings it is happiness because it is an observable fact that we seek happiness which is seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. We desire happiness as an end. (hedonism) All else is only a means to an end. Mill (no S) So actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness; by happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness pain and the privation of pleasure. (264) hedonism part So: What is happiness exactly? Pleasure sure but what is pleasure? Whose happiness counts?

Mine, yours, future generations, animals? Considerations of objections Mill establishes his view of utilitarianism (molds it, shapes it) by considering objections that might be or have been made against the view. we will consider 5 objections Through these he adds three important aspects to happiness that separate him from Bentham 1. stoic element 2. regard for others 3. mental cultivation And otherwise makes his view clearer Objection 1 (264): Pig Objection Objection: the pleasure principle turns people into pigs; a doctrine worthy of swines. Think: who might have made such a criticism? Kant: Aristotle: Plato: Objection 1: response It is those who make this criticism that degrade humanity, for they speak as if human beings are capable of pleasures only swine are capable of– but we are capable of much more. adds qualitative differences to Bentham’s quantitative (265) Pushpin versus poetry mental cultivation: any mind to which the fountains of knowledge have been opened is capable of happiness.

Objection 1 response competent judges (266) better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied and if a person believes otherwise it is because he hasn’t truly experienced the other side. (265) it takes more for a human being to be happy; higher pleasures Competent judges: Issues Analogy to Divine Command Theory (Ethyphro Question) Is what is right, right because Gd commands it? Or Does Gd command it because it is right? is what is preferable, preferable because the competent judges say so? Or do the competent judges prefer because it is preferable? Constitutive Versus Evidentiary/ objective versus relative This will be important later when he talks about proof Competent Judges People who don’t prefer higher quality pleasures haven’t practiced mental cultivation or haven’t been introduced to both sides.

Or Don’t have time Get addicted (266) Objection2: utilitarianism is selfish (271) the happiness that which forms the standard of the utilitarian doctrine is not the agent’s own, but happiness of everyone. To do as one would do another; love your neighbor like yourself (compare to Kant) What about peoples’ propensity to selfishness? Education/socilization Adds: due regard for the interests of others Objection 3: happiness can’t be the purpose of human life and action Kant: we have no idea how to be happy let alone how to make others’ happy. If the end of moral action was to create happiness, we would have been given the constitution to obtain it. (267) Mill: stoic element Objection 4: this standard is too high We cannot expect people to always be thinking of the happiness of everyone each time they act (271) https:// Answer: separate motive from rule of action (opposite of Kant) A standard of morals tells us what our duties are; but no system of ethics should require that we do things from a certain motive. e.g., tattoo case; drowning case; dog case Objection 5: no time to calculate There is no time to calculate the consequences of each choice every time we are faced with a decision. (275) Rules of thumb, experience and experience of others Rule vs.

Act Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill “Proof†for the principle of utility Review mental cultivation gets added due to pig criticism stoic element gets added due to criticism that we cannot be or don’t know how to be happy. due regard for the interests of others gets added by the criticism that utilitarianism is selfish Utilitarianism: do that act which among your choices results in the greatest good (happiness/pleasure) for the greatest amount of people. Two parts to this principle 1. hedonism: pleasure and only pleasure (happiness) is intrinsically good (good as an end) 2. non-egoism/universal part: everyone’s happiness counts Can there be a REAL proof? Strictly speaking no. Remember the structure: Duties: Foundation/given: principle of utility ** THE FOUNDATION IS THE GIVEN: NOTHING UNDER SO SUPPORT IT.

“proof†this is why we put “proof†in quotes– it is not a genuine proof. Rather Mill thinks he is giving us good reasons to believe that this is the foundation of morality. Like our sense experience gives us good reason to believe that we see red. (Hume) “proof†Three parts to the argument: Factual claim: people do, in fact, desire happiness (go for pleasure/avoid pain). hedonism: Happiness is desirable for persons. (move from is to ought: hard to do) Happiness is desirable for the aggregate of persons. From hedonism thedonism. 1.

Factual claim People do, in fact, seek their own happiness; they are moved to gain pleasure and avoid pain. Epistemology: empiricism all knowledge, including moral knowledge, is to be grounded in empirical fact. it is obvious based on observation that this is a correct assessment of what people desire. So fact: each person, insofar as they are rational, desires his/her own happiness criticism of factual claim There are other ends: people do, in fact, desire things as ends other than happiness. For example: friendship Mill’s response: happiness is not linear, it is circular With experience, these other goods become part of the end of happiness/pleasure. Thus, it feels like we desire them for their own sake—they become so as they become part of our very understanding of happiness.

In this sense, the relationship between these other goods and happiness is constitutive. Obtaining knowledge is good because it leads to happiness has a different picture. 2. The move from is to ought Mill must argue for the move from the FACT that people desire happiness to the claim that happiness is desirable. (intrinsically desirable) move from fact to hedonism. uses an analogical argument 2. analogy Analogy to the GIVEN in foundationalist theories of knowledge (Hume) The only proof that something is visible is that I see it. Likewise, the only proof that something is desirable is that people desire it.

X is desired/X is desirable X is visible/X is seen analogy weakness of analogy; only as strong as the similarities could criticize: A. sight and desire are not the same. Visible means able to be seen. Desirable does not mean can be or able to be desired; it means good if it were desired. e.g., I desire heroine, therefore heroine is desirable e.g., a strong constitution is desirable, that doesn’t mean that people desire it. We mean it would be good if people desire it. Argument for Hedonism: ought from is this shows it is hard to move from is to ought Mill wants to make this move: x is desired so x is desirable but it hardly follows from the fact that people are motivated to do X that it is good that they do so or that they ought to do so Criticism: response Mill would argue this is not intended to be a proof but rather give us good reasons to believe the claims Provide considerations that incline the intellect toward accepting the principle or seeing its merit We could argue that even though we are, in fact, ultimately motivated by happiness, we ought to pursue other goods.

But that would be to say we would never to motivated to pursue those goods. So we have no chance of being moral. (ought implies can) not quite what Plato said– we can change and grow Step 3: move from hedonism to universalism From: happiness is desirable for each person To: the general happiness is desirable for the aggregate of persons This move is made by appeal to discrimination Equal Protection under the Law: NO DISCRIMINATION WITHOUT LEGITIMATE DIFFERENCES CRITICISM OF THIS THIRD MOVE do we NEVER have reason to put ’s happiness above any other person’s? is there ever any legitimate difference? Rawls (a Kantian) says yes. (although so might a utilitarian: consider motive claim) our natural motives to put our own children’s happiness above others results in the greatest good if everyone else acts on their natural motives too.

Paper for above instructions

John Stuart Mill's philosophy, particularly his brand of utilitarianism, provides a unique framework for addressing ethical questions. Mill's assertions on the qualitative and quantitative nature of pleasures distinguish his approach from earlier utilitarian thinkers, such as Jeremy Bentham. By emphasizing the qualitative aspects of pleasure, Mill sought to refine utilitarianism, lend it ethical sophistication, and address criticisms that spanned centuries. In this paper, I intend to explain the differences between qualitative and quantitative pleasures, examine the implications of these distinctions for morality, and explore Mill's empiricist approach in contrast to Kant's rationalism. This discussion will also include an evaluation of Mill's proof for the principle of utility and its relevance in contemporary ethical debates.

The Difference Between Quantitative and Qualitative Pleasures

Bentham's utilitarianism posited that the morality of an action could be measured solely by the quantity of pleasure or pain it produced (Miller, 1990). Mill, however, argued that pleasures differ not only in quantity but also in quality. For Mill, qualitative pleasures hold a higher moral value compared to their quantitative counterparts. He famously distinguishes between the pleasure derived from "pushpin" (a simple game for children) and the pleasure derived from "poetry," asserting that intellectual and aesthetic pleasures are inherently superior (Mill, 1863).
Mill's assertion is pivotal because it moves beyond the crude metric of pleasure maximization to consider the intrinsic values of different experiences. He contended that competent judges – individuals who have experienced both types of pleasure – unanimously prefer higher quality pleasures, suggesting that a moral framework must account for these qualitative differences (Mill, 1863). This leads us to an essential aspect of Mill’s thought: pleasure and morality are intertwined, as moral actions bring about the greatest amount of happiness for all.

Determining Higher Quality Pleasures

How do we determine which pleasures are of higher quality? Mill argues that competent judges, who have both intellectual and lower pleasures, provide the best insight into these distinctions. He reasons that those who possess the experience and capability to appreciate the complexities of life tend to prefer higher pleasures (Mill, 1863). This perspective not only elevates the role of education and mental cultivation in achieving happiness but also unifies individual preferences with broader moral obligations.

Addressing the "Pig Philosophy" Criticism

The so-called "pig philosophy" criticizes utilitarianism for equating human happiness with base pleasures, implying a life not worthy of rational beings (Crisp, 1997). Mill's introduction of qualitative distinctions counters this criticism. By emphasizing higher and lower pleasures, he showcases that human beings, through their cognitive and aesthetic experiences, are capable of a enriched life that transcends mere swine-like satisfaction (Mill, 1863). This contention makes Mill’s utilitarianism more robust by asserting that it is appropriate to pursue intellectual and moral happiness—the cultivation of values, education, and social well-being.
While some may still argue that utilitarianism fails to address moral dilemmas, such as those surrounding justice and rights, Mill's framework allows for a more sophisticated engagement with ethical questions. Through a commitment to higher pleasures, he fosters an ethical system that aligns happiness with human flourishing, providing a counterpoint to earlier versions of hedonism.

Mill’s Empiricism and Moral Theories

Markedly, Mill was an empiricist. His moral philosophy rests on the idea that observations and experiences form the basis of ethical understanding. He claimed, "All action is for the sake of some end, and the ultimate end is happiness" (Mill, 1863). Empiricism significantly contrasts with Kant's rationalism, which argues for moral actions being universals derived from rational principles rather than experiences.
For Mill, ethical truths are derived from observable human behaviors and sentiments. This method of inquiry leads him to assert pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the fundamental motivations for human actions (Miller, 1990). In contrast, Kant suggests that moral actions should be governed by duty and the categorical imperative, focusing less on outcomes and more on the intention behind actions (Kant, 1785). This divergence creates two distinct schools of thought: Mill’s consequentialism, which believes that the morality of actions can be weighed against their outcomes, and Kant’s deontology, which posits that certain duties should be upheld regardless of consequences.

The Principle of Utility: Mill's Proof

Mill's proof of the principle of utility, which claims that actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they produce pain, is both specific and general (Mill, 1863). He argues that while this principle cannot be empirically proven in a strict philosophical sense, it can be supported through analogies and empirical observation. Mill indicates that because humans behave in ways that show they desire happiness, it is reasonable to conclude that happiness is the ultimate end (Mill, 1863).
In terms of hedonism, he maintains that happiness—the absence of pain and the presence of pleasure—is the foundational role of ethics. His argument proceeds in stages: first positing that pleasure is an observable human desire and then asserting that it is intrinsically good (Miller, 1990). To move toward universalism, Mill concludes that the happiness of the aggregate is beneficial, marking a shift from self-centered interests to collective well-being, capitalizing on the empirical basis of pleasure itself.

Conclusion

In conclusion, John Stuart Mill's contributions to ethical thought—especially his qualitative distinctions of pleasure—transform utilitarianism into a more humane and sophisticated ethical framework. By addressing criticisms surrounding earlier forms of hedonism and utilizing an empiricist outlook, he navigates the complexities of achieving human happiness while considering individual rights and collective well-being. Mill's engagements with pleasure and morality underscore the importance of education, cultivation, and ethical scrutiny in navigating moral dilemmas in contemporary times. Therefore, his work continues to instigate valuable discourse in the field of ethics, establishing a foundation that remains pivotal for future generations.

References

1. Crisp, R. (1997). Mill on Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (translated by H.J. Paton). New York: Harper & Row.
3. Miller, F. D. (1990). Mill's Utilitarianism: A Critical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
4. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
5. Mill, J. S. (2006). The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill: Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
6. Rachels, J. (2008). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7. Sidgwick, H. (1907). The Methods of Ethics. London: Macmillan.
8. Smart, J. J. C., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Audi, R. (2015). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.
This solution comprises a detailed investigation into Mill's utilitarian principles, highlighting the significance of qualitative pleasures while also contrasting with Kant's rationalist ethics, illuminating the depth of Mill's contributions to ethical philosophy.