Terms in this set (154)
What is the summum bonum?
Mill uses it to mean the foundation/end of morality.
In Latin it literally means the greatest good.
Mill held which of the following to be the larger meaning of the word 'proof?'
When the intellect is able to give or withhold assent.
What is the difference between an analytic and a synthetic statement?
Analytic statement is true a priori, whereas the synthetic statement is true a posteriori.
Analytic statement is true by definition, whereas the synthetic statement is true by observation and experience.
Which of the following does Mill believe would be the result of not having a first principle for ethics?
Make ethics merely into a consecration of men's sentiments of right and wrong.
Make particular sentiments of right and wrong, to precede first principles.
Make first principles to be constrained by the prior sentiments of right and wrong.
Make the general theory a derivative of particular sentiments of right and wrong.
Why does Mill argue that questions of ultimate ends not amenable to direct proof?
Because if ultimate ends where able to be a means to some other ultimate ends, then you would have to prove that ultimate ends was a means to some other ultimate ends, ad infinitum.
Because all things good must be proved to be good by showing that they are a means to something admitted to be good without proof.
Because an ultimate end, by definition, means that it is not a means to another end but is an end in itself.
Mill argues that because ultimate ends and the criteria of morality are submitted to the cognizance of the rational faculty, they do not become blind impulses or arbitrary choices.
t or f
Mill held that In science, first principles can do their job, equally well, whether they are understood or not.
t or f
For Mill, how is ethics different from science?
In science the particular truths precede the general theory whereas in ethics the general theory precedes the particular truths.
Mill argues that following are true concerning science.
From metaphysical analysis comes the first principles--particular truths.
From the first principles we derive the general theory.
Elementary scientific notions are submitted to metaphysical analysis.
General theory--the last thing to be discovered--tells us what we are pursuing.
What is Mill's two-step approach for rationally 'proving' the utilitarian formula?
First is to illustrate what the doctrine is and what it is not, secondly, is to analyze it as a philosophical theory.
For Mill what are the only things desirable as ends?
Pleasure and the freedom of pain, i.e., they are desired either for pleasure inherent in them or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.
For Mill, why are some pleasure superior over others?
Because of circumstantial reasons--if the pleasures offer greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, etc., i.e., have the best consequences, then they are the better ones.
Because of intrinsic value--some kinds of pleasures are by their nature more desirable and more valuable than others.
For Mill, a being of higher faculties:
Is capable of more suffering.
Requires more to make him/her happy.
Would not wish to sink into a lower grade of existence
Why would few human creatures consent to be changed into any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of the beast's pleasures or for the most complete satisfaction of all the desires of the fool?
Because of the sense of dignity which is basically in proportion to the higher faculties.
Can the preference for qualitative happiness over quantitative happiness end up being a sacrifice of happiness?
No, because to think otherwise is to confuse the distinctions between contentment/satisfaction and happiness.
How is it that Mill can say "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"?
Because Socrates can experience quantitative and qualitative pleasures whereas the pig or the fool can only experience quantitative pleasures.
Because contentment/satisfaction is a different notion than happiness.
Because Socrates is in fact qualitatively happier than the pig or the fool.
Because Socrates has higher faculties than a pig or a fool and therefore more dignity.
The following is the definition of Mill's greatest happiness principle. "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is intended pleasure and absence of pain. Unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure."
t or f
Is Mill's utilitarianism opposed to pleasure or does utility deal only with pleasure?
Utility is not opposed to pleasure and utility does not deal solely with pleasure as utility is also concerned with the exemption from pain.
Why did some criticize Mill's theory as mean and groveling and how does Mill respond?
Because it does not seem very noble to believe that there is no higher end than pleasure.
What test does Mill give in order to establish the superiority of quality over quantity?
It is established by the majority vote of those people who have been competently acquainted with both pleasures.
What is the "McDonald's syndrome?"
Pursuit of sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly aware that health is the greater good.
The postponement of a higher pleasure for that of a lower pleasure.
Because of a lack of character, one chooses a nearer good even though they know it to be of less value than a further good.
Which of the following does Mill believe causes the nobler feelings of the majority of young persons to sink into indolence and selfishness?
Because the higher faculties of the mind do not get sustenance.
They get addicted to inferior pleasures because they are either the only ones they have access to or because they are the only ones they are any longer able to enjoy.
Because the occupations and the society in which they find themselves in are not favorable to the continuous exercise of their higher faculties.
Because there is no time or opportunity to exercise their intellectual tastes and high aspirations they then lose them both.
Who are the competent judges of pleasures and pains for Mill?
Those who have knowledge of both, and if they differ, then it will be the vote of the majority of them.
How is it that the focus of Mill's utilitarian standard is not the agent's own greatest happiness?
Because if each individual in society focuses on the greatest amount of happiness altogether, then each individual will benefit including the agent.
Because even if the agent were only to be benefited by the nobleness of others, then the utilitarian end still would be attained by the general cultivation of nobleness of character.
Because there is an inextricable connection between the happiness of the collective and the happiness of the individual.
If by happiness Mill meant a state of exalted pleasure, would a state of continual "happiness" be possible?
No, rather existence is to be a life of transitory pains and many and various pleasures
No, rather, it lasts only moments/intermissions and we ought not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing.
No, it is not a life of rapture, rather it is moments of such with a predominance of the active over the passive.
Mill believed which of the following to be the main constituents of a satisfied life?
When people who are tolerably fortunate in their outward lot do not find in life sufficient enjoyment to make it valuable to them, what does Mill believe to be the cause?
Lack of mental cultivation, i.e., fountain of knowledge has not been opened.
Caring for nobody but themselves.
Lack of moral or human interest, i.e., having only curiosity.
Having neither public nor private affections.
What is Mill's definition of a "cultivated mind"?
Fountains of knowledge have been opened.
Finds sources of inexhaustible interests in all that surrounds it.
Has been taught to exercise its faculties.
Why does Mill define the end of human action--which is also the standard of morality--as "the rules and precepts for human conduct"?
Because a clear and precise conception of our end we are pursuing is a necessary condition for success in attaining our end.
Because the end--greatest happiness--is also the criteria for determining right and wrong.
Mill believed which of the following to be real hindrances to the attainment of happiness for all?
Wretched social arrangements.
For Mill, next to selfishness what is the principal causes that makes life unsatisfactory?
Lack of moral or human interest.
Lack of mental cultivation.
Mill believed that a person can retain a lively interest in life by:
Having a collective interest in mankind.
Mill believes that the main stresses of life, poverty, disease, and the vicissitudes of fortune, are ultimately correctable/conquerable.
t or f
What difference did Mill hold to between intelligent interest and curiosity?
Interest is connected with the fountain of knowledge/contemplation, curiosity is connected with ignorance.
Interest is inexhaustible; curiosity is exhaustible.
Interest is long term: curiosity is temporary.
According to Mill, who has the potential for the development of interests?
Miserable individuality is not an inherent necessity and therefore all people can develop the concept of the collective.
Intelligent interest should be the inheritance of everyone.
Mill held that If rightly brought up people will have the following in differing degrees:
Genuine private affections.
Sincere interest in the public good.
According to Mill even if a person is properly brought up, what obstacles could they still face?
Being denied liberty to use the sources of happiness that are available.
Being unable to escape the evils of life--indigence, disease, premature loss of objects of affection.
Being subjected to the will of others.
What does nobility have to do with the conquering of human suffering?
Living in a world in which we are able to correct and improve gives us a noble enjoyment that is in essence enviable.
One would not trade the noble enjoyment one experiences in the process of conquering human suffering for any amount of selfish indulgence.
Under what conditions is the self-renunciation of happiness applauded?
Must increase, or tend to increase, the total amount of happiness, otherwise the sacrifice is wasted.
Must be a means to some end, it is not an end in itself.
Must promote the happiness of mankind collectively or of individuals within the limits imposed by the collective interests.
This sacrifice is the highest virtue of man only because we are in an imperfect state of the worlds arrangements.
For Mill the highest virtue to be found in man, paradoxically results in the best prospect of realizing happiness. With regard to the greatest happiness principle, what are some of the component parts of this highest virtue.
The conscious ability to do without happiness--freedom.
The peace of mind one has in regard to the duration of happiness if one is able to do without it--freedom.
The tranquility of knowing that one is above the chances of life if one is able to do without happiness--freedom.
Mill argues that the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality is the golden rule. What are some of its characteristics?
The maxim "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" limits actions of self-interest.
The standard of right conduct is not just the agent's own happiness but that of all concerned.
Requires impartiality in the concern of: one's own happiness, and the happiness of those whom you can effect.
The maxim "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" emphasizes the concern one should have towards others around you.
According to Mill, what needs to be implemented in order for the ideal of the golden rule to come about?
Laws and education should result in individuals having habitual motives of action and sentiments/feelings to promote the general good.
Education and opinion should establish an indissoluble association between one's own happiness and the good of the whole.
Laws and social arrangements should place the happiness or the interest of every individual as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole.
Laws and education should result in individuals being unable to even conceive of the possibility of happiness to themselves, with conduct opposed to the general good.
According to Mill, which of the following is FALSE
If an action is done with a benevolent motive, then it is impossible for the consequence to be immoral.
According to Mill, for the majority of actions the "thoughts of the most virtuous man" should focus on whom?
If the action does not violate the rights of others, then the focus should be on some few person, i.e., private utility.
Which of the following statements is FALSE in reference to Mill's utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism is only concerned with the consequences of actions and not with the motive of the action.
In the long run, Mill holds that the BEST proof of a virtuous/good character is good actions?
t or f
How does Mill define prejudice?
How does Mill's utilitarianism helps in what way regarding conflicting obligations?
It provides a real and understandable way of resolving moral conflicts.
Is Mill's utilitarianism a godless doctrine?
No, since all things God has thought fit to reveal on the subject of morals fulfills the requirements of utility in the supreme degree.
No, since God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, utilitarianism is profoundly religious.
According to Mill the purpose of ethics is to tell us what are duties or by what test we may know them; but ethics does not require that the sole motive of all we do shall be a feeling of duty as ninety-nine hundredths of our actions are done from other motives, and rightly so done if the rule of duty does not condemn them.
t or f
Utility is often times stigmatized as an immoral doctrine of expediency. How does Mill respond?
Expediency, when opposed to the right, generally means that which is expedient solely for the agent.
Expediency, when opposed to the right, means that which is expedient for some immediate object/purpose, but which violates a rule whose observance is expediency in a much higher degree.
Expediency, when opposed to the right, is not a branch of the useful, rather it is a branch of the hurtful.
What two factors does Mill believes contributes to the success of the application of the greatest-happiness principle when there are unequivocal cases of conflicting obligations?
The degree in which the moral agent has intellect and virtuous character.
Mill talks about moral rules being transcendent and even sacred. Does this mean that there can be no exceptions or conflicts of utilities/duties?
No, rather it means that if there is going to be an exception, the principle of utility will decide which of the conflicting utilities/duties predominates, and what its limits should be.
How does Mill respond to the critics that there is not enough time, previous to action, for doing a utilitarian calculation of what is right or wrong?
There has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species.
We need not start from scratch as mankind has already determined some rules of morality for society as seen by what we teach our young and enforce by law and opinion.
This criticism is an absurd claim of universal idiocy. Even though there is much to learn, mankind by this time has acquired many positive beliefs as to the effect of some rules of actions on their happiness.
Mill thought of rules as being secondary principles (mid-level) and he thought of the greatest-happiness principles as being a first principle (theory). Do they conflict?
No, rather they support each other. The first principle informs us of our end/goal and our secondary principles/rules help guide us towards that end/goal.
With whatever fundamental principle of morality we adopt, is it also necessary to have secondary (mid-level) principles/rules?
Yes, it is absolutely necessary because secondary principles/rules are the general conclusions that society has agreed on and the ones that guide most of our moral lives.
Does utilitarianism determine absolute universal laws of moral conduct or does it allow for conflicting obligations/exceptions?
Utilitarianism believes that it is not the fault of any creed, but of the complicated nature of human affairs, that rules of conduct cannot be so framed as to require no exceptions.
There is no ethical creed which does not temper the rigidity of its laws by giving a certain latitude, under the moral responsibility of the agent, for accommodations to peculiarities of circumstances.
Utilitarianism, like all moral doctrines, recognizes unequivocal cases of conflicting obligations.
According to Mill, at what point in the process of moral decision-making is it requisite that the first principles be appealed to?
Since there is no case of moral obligation in which some secondary principle is not involved, it is only necessary to appeal to the first principles when it appears that the secondary principles conflict.
We begin living our moral lives by the secondary principles that have been taught to us. It is only in cases in which our secondary principles conflict that it is requisite to appeal to the first principles.
For Mill, what is the sanction (motive) of morality if an agent is not sensitive to the ultimate sanction?
External sanctions: based on reward and punishment.
For most people, including Mill, what seems to have more practical binding force: 1) the foundation of morality, i.e., theory/first principle of the greatest happiness principle; or 2) the corollaries, i.e., mid-level/secondary principles?
Mid-level/secondary principles. Society consecrates through education and opinion the customary standards of morality, not the actual theory that brought about those standards.
For Mill, what is the ultimate sanction (motive) of all morality?
As in all moral standards--the conscientious feelings of mankind, i.e., a subjective feeling in our own minds--duty.
For Mill, what are the components of external and internal sanctions?
External sanctions: based on reward and punishment. Internal sanctions: based on the feeling of duty--conscience.
If duty--the ultimate motive of Mill's utilitarianism--were to be innate, what would it be composed of?
Principles of morality, i.e., maxims, not details of actions.
Maxims with regard to the pleasures and pains of others.
Does Mill believe that moral feelings/duties are innate?
No, rather the moral faculty is a natural outgrowth from our nature, and is susceptible to cultivation.
Does Mill argue that we have natural sentiments that form the foundation for utilitarian morality?
Yes, this very powerful natural sentiment is the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures.
According Mill, what are the necessary relations between human beings in a society?
The good of others must become as much a necessity as the basic necessities of our physical existence.
As a collective one's own ends must be identified with the ends of others resulting in the feeling that the interests of others are in fact their own interests.
Society of equals requires that the interests of all must be regarded equally.
Mill's moral conception of the "collective" results in what type of political improvements?
Individuals, including politicians, will never think or desire, any beneficial condition for themselves in which the benefits of society/collective are not included.
The taking away of sources of opposition against peoples interests.
The leveling of inequalities of legal privilege between individuals or classes.
According to Mill is it possible to inculcate/teach this feeling of unity within the social collective or is utilitarianism meant to be only an ideal end or purpose of morality to be striven towards?
If from infancy utilitarianism is taught and disseminated as a religion and the whole force of education, institutions and public opinion support it both in profession and practice, then it would be possible.
The development of the social feeling results in what type of attitude towards others in society?
Individuals that will recognize that social feeling, is not one of superstition or law, rather it is an attribute which one recognizes that it would not be well for them to be without.
Individuals will have a natural desire that there should be harmony between their own feelings and aims and those of their fellow creatures.
Individuals will be unable to think of the rest of their fellow creatures as struggling rivals for the means of happiness.
What convictions defines the "ultimate sanction" of Mill's greatest happiness morality?
The ultimate sanction is composed of internal sanctions that holds that social feelings, are not of superstition or law, rather they are attributes which one recognizes that it would not be well for them to be without.
The ultimate sanction is composed of internal sanctions that are well-developed feelings of conscience that work with, and not against, the external sanctions of outward motives to care for others.
The ultimate sanction holds that if external sanctions are lacking or act in an opposite direction towards the interests of others then the internal sanctions of conscience will be the binding force in proportion to the sensitiveness and thoughtfulness of the character of the agent.
What does Mill have to say about moral obligation being a transcendental fact?
Mill disagrees that if a moral obligation is believed to be a transcendental fact, "things in themselves" then people will be more obedient than if a person believes moral obligation is entirely subjective, i.e., based on consciousness which is a feeling.
Utilitarianism is not a transcendental theory.
Transcendentalists, whose conscientious feelings are weak, will do a moral action not because they believe in the transcendental theory, but because of external sanctions.
Why, according to Mill, are ultimate ends not capable of being "proven," in the ordinary meaning of the term?
Because the only way ultimate ends can be "proven," is by showing how they are actually a means to some other end, and that would be a contradiction.
For Mill, what is the only "proof" that can be given and or required concerning the first premises of knowledge and of conduct/practical ends?
The sole evidence that anything is desirable is that people individually and collectively do actually desire it in both theory and practice.
For Mill, is happiness the only end of conduct, and consequently the only sole criterion for morality?
No, virtue and absence of vice can in fact be desired as an end, at least as much as pleasure and the absence of pain, and is as authentic as the desire for happiness. Virtue as an end is therefore a criterion for morality.
No, many means to an end can become ends in themselves, e.g., even money, power, and fame, as long as they do not detract from the collective--society as a whole.
Mill argues that in order to attain the greatest amount of happiness individuals must have the state of mind in which they love virtue as an end, desirable in itself, even if virtue would not produce desirable consequences.
t or f
For Mill, is virtue naturally and originally part of an end? Can it become an end?
No it is not originally and end but it may become so by those individuals who live, desire and cherish it disinterestedly, not as a means to happiness but as a part of it.
For Mill, can money, power, and fame become the end in itself, i.e., happiness?
Yes, if the desire for them as a means to happiness becomes one of an end, i.e., principal ingredient of the individual's conception of happiness.
Is happiness an abstract idea for Mill?
No, Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole with various parts.
Mill argues that the fact that people seem to have a number of desires other than happiness that are ends in themselves is a good thing?
Yes, life would be a poor thing if there were no provision of nature for making actions more valuable than their conduciveness to pleasure or avoidance of pain.
Why does Mill argue that the love of virtue is to be cultivated above all other means that becomes ends?
Because you can never have an excessive amount of virtue that would affect the rest of society in a negative way.
Mill argues that anything that has become an end in itself and therefore desired for itself, is really only a desire for happiness.
Yes, they are desired as a part of happiness, i.e., "ends" really are not ends in themselves until they are desired as a part of happiness.
Mill held that if happiness is the only thing really desirable as an end in itself, and if it is true that virtuous actions, which are ends in themselves, ultimately fulfill the utilitarian principle of utility, then he had fully "proven" the greatest happiness principle.
t or f
What proof does Mill provide that humans desire nothing but happiness and how does it relate to the criterion of morality?
Self-consciousness and observations of others tells us that human nature is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness, thus it must be the criterion of morality.
Mill argues that virtue is the habitual will to do right without regard to the consequences, and this virtue is good ultimately, because of the positive consequences of people being virtuous.
t or f
Mill held that ultimately, happiness is the only thing really desirable as an end, and all other things are only desirable as a means to that end.
t or f
For Mill, "will" is the active phenomenon, and "desire" is the passive sensibility.
t or f
What three ways can habit be exercised according to Mill?
Unconsciously, consciously in opposition to our preference, and consciously in fulfillment of our preferences.
Why does Mill believe that it is so important that virtuous actions become habitual?
Because of the importance to oneself of being able to rely absolutely on oneself.
Because pleasure and pain are not sufficient for unerring constancy of action whereas virtue that is habitual imparts certainty.
Because of the importance to others of being able to rely absolutely on our feelings and conduct.
Mill would never argue that a person ought to be virtuous without regard to the consequences as that would be a contradiction to utilitarianism.
t or f
Mill argues that, because we first have a desire we will/choose a particular action; however, because our will/choosing is amenable to habit we then may will/choose from habit what we no longer desire for itself; lastly, because we are willing/choosing by habit we may then desire it simply because we are willing/choosing it.
t or f
Mill states that the virtuous will acts without any thought of either pleasure or pain. How does one implant or awaken this will to be virtuous?
By making the person think of virtue as pleasurable.
By making the person think of the absence of virtue as painful.
Historically justice has been the strongest obstacle for the acceptance of the utilitarian criterion of right and wrong. What attributes does justice have according to Mill?
Stimulates a powerful sentiment, people have clear perceptions of it, has certainty and speed resembling an instinct, seems to be an inherent quality in things, exists in nature as absolute, and is distinct from the expedient.
According to Mill, why is mankind predisposed to believe that subjective feelings are revelations of objective reality?
It is just a factual observation of mankind.
The difference between justice being sui generis and its being a derivative feeling is whether the feeling of justice is a unique perception of some reality (e.g., vision and taste give us unique perceptions, secondary qualities, of a "real" substratum), or whether the feeling of justice is a psychological result of a combination of a variety of "perceptions," i.e., secondary qualities attached to different substrates other than justice--which does not exist as a substratum or objective reality.
t or f
The purpose of Mill's fifth chapter on Justice is to determine whether the reality to which the feeling of justice corresponds is:
One of objective reality, i.e., a thing intrinsically peculiar to its secondary qualities, i.e., an existing substratum.
One that can be explained by a combination of secondary qualities, in particular situations, that stimulates a psychological feeling.
According to Mill, why do people find it difficult to see justice as a branch of general utility?
Because even though objectively people can understand justice as coinciding with expediency, subjectively the psychological feeling of justice seems to be far more imperative than utility and many people therefore believe that "justice" must be different than that of general utility.
Mill argues that impartiality is an obligation/duty only where rights are concerned.
t or f
Mill argues that for many people the attribute of equality constitutes the very essence of justice.
t or f
Mill argues that there seems to be less disagreement on how equality should be implemented than on any of the other attributes of justice.
t or f
Mill argues that most individuals assert that justice mandates that there be equal protection of rights, even by those who support the most outrageous inequality of rights themselves, e.g., master slave relationship.
t or f
Mill argues that even the leveling doctrines of the communists differ on how riches and social goods should be distributed.
t or f
What five competing criteria did Mill list for differing distribution schemes of communists?
1. exact equality, 2. according to need, 3. according to the amount of work contributed, 4. accord to what the person produces, 5. according to whose services are more valuable.
According to Mill, what are the component parts of the feeling of justice?
Intellectual instincts which make us judge in particular ways.
Animal instincts which make us judge in particular ways.
What is going to be Mill's approach to the investigation of justice?
If justice as a psychological feeling can NOT be explained by one or more secondary qualities arising in various particular situations, then Mill will have to determine if this psychological feeling is that of an objective reality.
First Mill will study a variety of concrete situations that are classified, by universal or widely spread opinions, as being just or unjust, i.e., things known to excite the sentiments. Then he will see if there are any common attributes among them.
If justice as a psychological feeling CAN be explained by one or more secondary qualities arising in various particular situations, then Mill will NOT have to determine if this psychological feeling is that of an objective reality.
Mill argues that it is not expedient to compel a person to fulfill a duty.
t or f
Mill argues that some acts that are not only unjust but also incite in us a feeling that those agents ought to be punished, still we can conclude that it may not be expedient to give law the authority to punish such actions as that would give too much
power to the legislators over individuals.
t or f
Mill argues that it is expedient and essential that laws should regulate all the details of private life.
t or f
According to Mill, what does it mean to call something wrong.
Ought to be punished by law
Ought to be punished if not by opinion then by the reproaches of his own conscience.
Ought to be punished if not by law then by opinion of others.
Mill argues that duty is a thing that may
be exacted from a person, as one exits a debt.
t or f
According to Mill, reasons of prudence, or the interests of other people ought never to interfere with the exacting of a duty from someone.
t or f
Mill argues that there are many things that we may wish others to do or not to do but admit that they are not bound to do them, i.e., the actions that are not moral duties
t or f
What distinctions does Mill make between duties of perfect obligations and duties of imperfect obligations?
Duties of imperfect obligations are not based on rights but rather on social sympathies. Duties of perfect obligations are based on rights.
Duties of imperfect obligations give us obligations of morality. Duties of perfect obligation give us obligations of justice.
What does Mill mean when something is right?
An action is right if we would wish to see the person, whom it concerns, compelled to do it.
Mill argues that justice implies that which it is not only right to do and wrong not to do, but which person(s) can claim from us as their right.
t or f
Mill argues that morality implies not only that which person(s) may desire from us, but also that which person's can claim as their right.
t or f
Mill claims that although the source of the sentiment of justice does not arise from expediency, what is moral in justice does arise from expediency.
t or f
Mill argues that there are two essential ingredients in the sentiment of justice. What are they?
The knowledge or belief that some definite person(s) has been harmed.
The desire to punish a person who has done harm.
According to Mill, what are the two "instinctive" sentiments that accompany the desire to punish?
The impulse of self-defense, and the feeling of sympathy.
It is not necessary according to Mill to know whether the origin of our sentiments of self-defense and of sympathy is that of instinct or a result of intelligence because either way we know by fact that it is common to all animal nature.
t or f
According to Mill, a just person will resent a hurt to society even if it does not hurt him, and a just person will not resent a hurt to himself if society does not have a common interest in repressing that hurt.
t or f
Mill argues that it is the daily conduct, not regulated by law, that generally shows or determines whether or not a person is just or unjust.
t or f
Mill defines positive rights and negative rights as follows:
Positive rights: duty/obligation of a person(s) to provide something to the holder of the right. Negative rights: duty/obligation of a person(s) not to interfere with the holder of the right to exercise that right.
Mill recognizes that Kant also argues that the fundament principle of morality is universality, i.e., the collective.
t or f
Mill argues that if an individual regards himself as asserting a rule/maxim which is for the benefit of others, the collective, as well as for his own benefit, then he is just.
t or f
In contrast to Kant, Mill does not use the principle of universality rather Mill is primarily concerned with individual interests and benefits.
t or f
Mill argues that universality gives the rules of conduct their morality, and the sentiments of punishment for the violators of those rules give the sanctions their energy.
t or f
The following is true with regard to Mill's sentiment of justice:
The animal desire to repel or retaliate a hurt or damage to oneself or to those with whom one sympathizes.
The peculiar impressiveness and energy of the sentiment of justice which comes from the animal desire of retaliation.
The moral part of the sentiment of justice calls for the intellectual enlargement of one's sympathies and self-interest to include all persons, i.e., the collective.
According to Mill, what does it mean when we talk of a violation of a right?
It means that there is sentient/demand for punishment.
It means that some person or persons have failed in their obligation to either provide something or to not interfere with some persons activity.
It means that there has been a hurt to some assignable person or persons.
When we call anything a person's right, what does it mean for Mill?
It means that a person has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of it, either by the force of law or by that of education and opinion.
It is an individual right that does not relate to either other persons or to the collective.
Mill argues that to have a right, positive or negative, is to have something which society ought to defend. What reason(s) can be given for society's obligation to defend those rights?
Because of the consequences.
Because of general utility.
Because of the greatest happiness principle.
According to Mill, what two components make up the energy of the sentiment that society has an obligation to defend a person's rights.
The rational element of judiciousness, and the animal element of retaliation brought about by the feeling of self-defense.
According to Mill, what is the value of security/rights for humanity?
The whole value of all and every good depends on security.
All other earthly benefits can be foregone except for security.
Security is the most vital of all interests.
After physical nutriment, this is the most indispensable of all necessaries.
According to Mill, explain how the intensity of the feelings surrounding the security of rights makes justice become "different in kind" in comparison to other utilitarian claims.
The psychological importance produces feelings so strong that in comparison with other feelings security becomes absolute.
Feelings of security are so strong that ought and should grow into must.
The indispensability of security becomes analogous to the objectively real physical needs of persons.
When situations arise that result in conflicting principle of justice, Mill believes that there is no other mode of extrication than that of utility
t or f
Mill argues that although there are various philosophical positions as to what the purposes of punishment are, or how remuneration ought to be given, or how taxation ought to be distributed, there is still only one way to come to a satisfactory solution and that is through the use of social utility.
t or f
Mill is clear in that what is expedient for general society is necessarily just for the individual.
t or f
Mill argues that it may be the case that that which is just for individuals is also that which is expedient for general society but it is not the case that that which is expedient for general society is necessarily just for the individual.
t or f
How does justice relate to moral rules according to Mill?
Justice is a class of moral rules, that concerns the essentials of human well-being more nearly than any other class of moral rules and is therefore more absolute in obligation.
Justice, which is grounded on utility, is the most sacred and binding part of all moral rules.
How do moral rules relate to rights according to Mill?
Moral rules of security are based on rights which are more vital to human well-being than any maxims--which only point to the best mode of managing some area of human affairs.
The essence of justice, i.e., as a class of moral rules, is that of rights residing in individuals within a social context.
According to Mill, what is it that preserves the peace among humans?
The obedience of the moral rules of security, as based on rights.
According to Mill, are the violations of "rights" all equal in degree of injustice?
No, rather the most marked cases of injustice are acts of wrongful aggression or wrongful exercise of power over someone; next is wrongfully withholding from someone something which is his due.
No, rather the most marked cases of injustice are acts with violate rights of security, next is the violation of the notion of desert.
According to Mill, most maxims of justice are based on what?
Instrumentally, i.e., on how well they carry into effect the principle of justice called the maxim of desert.
Mill believes that the principle of justice--"Desert", should come before the expedient because of the intensity of the sentiment attached to it, and because the other principles of justice seem to be instrumental/means to desert.
t or f
According to Mill, what is the test that can be given to determine if a person is fit to exist as part of the collective?
By determining whether a person is obedient to the moral rules of security either directly--by doing no harm, or indirectly--by not hindering other people's freedom in pursuit of their own good.
According to Mill, how is it that the history of social improvements has been one of transitions from necessities of inequalities to that of injustices?
Because equality, is the first of the judicial virtues, which must come before any of the other judicial virtues can even be exercised.
Because equality is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice towards which all institutions and virtous citizens should converge.
Because all social inequalities that cease to be necessary and expedient assume the character of being unjust and tyrannical.
Because equality is involved in the very meaning of utility, or the greatest happiness principle.
According to Mill, what is the first of the judicial virtues?
Impartiality, because it is a necessary condition for the fulfillment of the other obligations of justice.
Mill argues that if we are to have desert as a maxim then it necessary follows that we must have the maxim of equality in order to fulfill that obligation of desert.
t or f
Mill argues that the reason most often presented for violating the right of equality is when social expediency, i.e., when society as a whole will be better off, requires the reverse of equality. This according to Mill is permissible under those conditions.
t or f
According to Mill, Which of the following is/are true?
Like the other claims of justice, people have a tendency to differ on how equality should be held or applied. People have a mistaken tendency to show exception towards the maxim of equality when they think it expedient.
If expediency allows exceptions to that of equality and if equality is the highest social expediency then we have a contradiction, i.e., it is therefore always impermissible for society to violate equality for expediency.
Society as an institution of desert, must as a corollary treat all equally in order to fulfill its duties.
In general, everyone ought to have equal claims to all the means of happiness.
According to Mill there are times in which it is permissible for society to violate equality for expediency.
t or f
As a result of injustices brought about because of expediency, what does Mill believe should have the highest social utility?
Maxim of justice, which are composed of individual rights and liberties, i.e., one ought not to violate maxims of individual justice for that of social expediency, because individual justice, when regarded collectively, is the highest social expediency.
According to Mill, there are never any exceptions to the obedience of the maxims of justice. Rather, what happens is that what may be just in one particular case may not be just under differing individual circumstances. Injustice is never laudable.
t or f
Mill argues that; if the sentiment of justice is simply the natural feeling of resentment, moralized by being made co-extensive with the demands of social good; and if this feeling not only does but ought to exist in all the classes of cases to which the idea of justice corresponds; then the sentiment of justice has been sufficiently accounted for.
t or f
According to Mill, because maxims of justice are a class of social utilities more important and absolute than any other class of utilities, they have a sentiment not only different in degree but also in kind, i.e., the sentiment attached to the maxims of justice are different than the sentiments attached to that of expediency.
t or f
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Philosophy Test #2
Ethics Exam 2
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...
AS Religious Studies - Utilitarianism
Ethics Test 1