Human geography: What are the stages of assimilation? Can you identify groups in your country that are culturally assimilated but not functionally assimilated? ( 160-200 words APA format, APA citation, 2-3 credible sources International relations: Why might the next few decades be critical for establishing the validity of democratic peace theory? (160-200 words APA format, APA citation, 2-3 credible sources Wolff, Jonathan. An Introduction to Moral Philosophy: WW Norton & Company, New York. 2018. Instructor C. A. Berkey-Abbott Notes for Chapter 9[footnoteRef:1] [1: Items in black represent text material; items in blue are items for consideration or notes to myself about the course. ] I. Is Happiness the Sole Ultimate Good? a. Introduction: Mill thinks that he has shown that happiness is the sole good. We will explore this claim and look at a range of objections raised by other philosophers aiming to show that Mill is wrong. b. The Narrowness Objection: The narrowness objection is that the utilitarian theory of the good is too narrow because happiness is only one type of good that is sought for its sake. Sidgwick (1830 – 1900) suggests that excellence is similarly sought. Art is another possibility. Sidgwick acknowledges that we could seek excellence for the happiness of others, but it is also possible to seek excellence entirely for its sake, but it would be irrational to do so. Is it obviously irrational to want to produce something just to see what you are capable of doing without caring whether others appreciate it? (145-146). c. The Agency Objection: A second objection is: what matters is not just the subjective feelings of pleasure and pain we have, but also how we act. Nozick’s suggestion is that what matters is not so much how things feel to us, but whether we really have accomplished the things we set out to accomplish in our lives. d. The Evil Pleasures Objection: This third objection is that “not all pleasures are good…Does the pleasure of a sadistic torturer deserve to be called good, and weighed against the pains of the victim?” (147). Knowing that some people take delight in other’s suffering seems to make things worse rather than better. e. The Quality Objection: Mill himself worried about a fourth challenge: that Bentham’s view that all pleasures are to be evaluated purely according to their intensity and length. Mill claims that quality matters too. One pleasure is higher than another if those who have experienced both would not give up the higher pleasure for any amount of the lower. “Better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” – Mill. Somehow [no argument given] Wolff suggests that “Mill could be accused of confusing differences in quality with the point that we all see variety in our lives. Most pleasure fade, the more often they are done – diminishing marginal utility. Utilitarian Peter Singer utilizes this concept arguing that a dollar in the hand of a poor person gives her far more ...

1. Human geography:
What are the stages of assimilation? Can you identify groups in
your country that are culturally assimilated but not functionally
assimilated? ( 160-200 words APA format, APA citation, 2-3
credible sources
International relations:
Why might the next few decades be critical for establishing the
validity of democratic peace theory? (160-200 words APA
format, APA citation, 2-3 credible sources
Wolff, Jonathan. An Introduction to Moral Philosophy: WW
Norton & Company, New York. 2018.
Instructor C. A. Berkey-Abbott Notes for Chapter
9[footnoteRef:1] [1: Items in black represent text material;
items in blue are items for consideration or notes to myself
about the course. ]
I. Is Happiness the Sole Ultimate Good?
a. Introduction: Mill thinks that he has shown that happiness is
the sole good. We will explore this claim and look at a range of
objections raised by other philosophers aiming to show that Mill
is wrong.
b. The Narrowness Objection: The narrowness objection is that
the utilitarian theory of the good is too narrow because
happiness is only one type of good that is sought for its sake.
Sidgwick (1830 – 1900) suggests that excellence is similarly
sought. Art is another possibility. Sidgwick acknowledges that
we could seek excellence for the happiness of others, but it is
also possible to seek excellence entirely for its sake, but it
would be irrational to do so. Is it obviously irrational to want to

2. produce something just to see what you are capable of doing
without caring whether others appreciate it? (145-146).
c. The Agency Objection: A second objection is: what matters is
not just the subjective feelings of pleasure and pain we have,
but also how we act. Nozick’s suggestion is that what matters is
not so much how things feel to us, but whether we really have
accomplished the things we set out to accomplish in our lives.
d. The Evil Pleasures Objection: This third objection is that
“not all pleasures are good…Does the pleasure of a sadistic
torturer deserve to be called good, and weighed against the
pains of the victim?” (147). Knowing that some people take
delight in other’s suffering seems to make things worse rather
than better.
e. The Quality Objection: Mill himself worried about a fourth
challenge: that Bentham’s view that all pleasures are to be
evaluated purely according to their intensity and length. Mill
claims that quality matters too. One pleasure is higher than
another if those who have experienced both would not give up
the higher pleasure for any amount of the lower. “Better to be a
human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” – Mill.
Somehow [no argument given] Wolff suggests that “Mill could
be accused of confusing differences in quality with the point
that we all see variety in our lives. Most pleasure fade, the more
often they are done – diminishing marginal utility. Utilitarian
Peter Singer utilizes this concept arguing that a dollar in the
hand of a poor person gives her far more utility that a dollar in
the hand of the rich and therefore it would maximize total
happiness to redistribute from the rich to the poor.
At the least, it seems that there is some pro-human arrogance
happening here and at times of stress, a pig’s life may even

3. seem more attractive. With this distinction, it is starting to look
more like an elitist view than the democratic approach of
Bentham. There is concern over how this distinction would
influence a utilitarian calculation.
f. The Irrelevance Objection: Finally, there is a possibility that
happiness is not a good at all and has nothing to do with
morality.
II. Maximizing Happiness
a. Introduction: Even if happiness is the sole ultimate good,
does it follow that it must be maximized? This question is
raised, but not really addressed here by the author. Instead, we
go off onto a discussion about consequentialism and non-
consequentialism. The focus solely on consequences
(consequentialist tradition) can lead to a utilitarian to a
counterintuitive conclusion. Another concern is that utilitarians
might get to the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason; the
problem of contingency.
b. Counterintuitive Consequences: Some counter-intuitive
possibilities involve punishment, the Trolley Car Problem, and
Death Bed Promises. Regarding punishment, we might need a
scapegoat to calm the fears of the public and/or punishment for
crimes that are not likely to be repeated (crimes of passion)
might be absolved. Regarding the Trolley Car Problem: we
might sacrifice (or murder) one person to save the lives of
others. Regarding death bed promises, we might make them and
intend to keep them, but then decide that it is too much effort
[Lonesome Dove]. The point is that at times utilitarianism may
sometimes requires injustice. Utilitarians may argue about the
circumstances, but these theoretical (at least) criticisms are
regarded as probably the most serious faced by the utilitarian
(151-153).

4. III. Modifying Utilitarianism
a. Introduction: The possibility of these injustices has led to
several attempts to try to improve utilitarianism.
b. Act and Rule Utilitarianism: Act utilitarians apply the
greatest happiness principle (theory) to individual decisions
(applied) level. Rule utilitarians apply the greatest happiness
principle (theory) at the rule-making (normative) level. For
some reason Roy Harrod (1900 -78) an economist, is given
credit for rule-utilitarianism even though the author
acknowledges it is present in Bentham and Mill and (in the next
chapter) that Harrod’s position was heavily influenced by Kant.
Anyway, there is an insistence on moral rules and laws for the
rule-utilitarian; a single instance of lying might generate more
pleasure, but approving of lying as a rule would not. Similarly,
this provides a utilitarian response to the “scapegoating”
example previously considered and perhaps the other injustice
examples.
Some critics charge that rule-utilitarianism is irrational. Milder
punishment in the scapegoating example could be a good rule,
but ends up in an act utilitarian consideration. Sidgwick (1874)
makes a similar assertion. A utilitarian would need to estimate
how likely each outcome is, and what the consequences would
be. Can one imagine all of the possible futures? Are we sure we
can access them properly? Won’t miscalculation likely favor my
interests?
c. Two-level Utilitarianism:
i. Government House Utilitarianism: Sigwick proposes the idea
that for utilitarian reasons, ordinary people have to be taught
that utilitarianism is false. Only the moral elite – presumably
professors of moral philosophy and people of similar standing –
can be trusted with the moral truth. Since this level of elitism

5. seems like colonial rulers living in the government house to
oversee colonial subjects, it has come to be known as:
Government House Utilitarianism. Giving people rules (rather
than principles) may bring about the greater moral outcome.
ii. Critical-Ordinary Self: Richard Hare (1919-2002) proposes a
different two-level utilitarianism where each of us has two
levels of moral thinking: Critical and ordinary / intuitive moral
thinking. Utilitarianism may recommend that we murder in a
particular situation where if we are well schooled in intuitive
morality, we will find it almost impossible to kill an actual
person. Question: By permitting act-utilitarian consideration
sin only the most extreme circumstances, we may allow for the
sacrifice as innocent and secondly can we split ourselves into
two in the way Hare suggests?
IV. The Problem of Contingency; Gender and Race
Another concern with utilitarianism suggests that it is simply
wrong it itself. In this view, utilitarianism is irrelevant. Getting
to the right answer about women’s liberation for example, but
on the wrong basis (not because women deserve equality of
treatment) is an example of a problem of contingency. The
problem of contingency suggests that utilitarians often sort of
accidently come to the correct moral answer through a faulty
justification.
The final section of this chapter highlights that even as a strong
defender of liberation and non-state paternalism, Mill allowed
an exception as a member of the British East Indian Trading
Company for those “barbarian” races that were not able to
manage themselves. Despite India being more civilized than
Mill supposed, that the civilized may be more happy, that
limiting individual rights is more likely to lead away from
civilization, and 4) regardless of how the barbarians acted, they
have a right to self-determination.
This understanding that utilitarianism is antithetical to human
rights is the reason many people find it fundamentally flawed as

6. a moral theory.
V. Chapter Review
Please read the chapter review, consider the discussion
questions, and be familiar with the key terms from the chapter
and from class:
Wolff, Jonathan. An Introduction to Moral Philosophy: WW
Norton & Company, New York. 2018.
Instructor C. A. Berkey-Abbott Notes for Chapter
8[footnoteRef:1] [1: Items in black represent text material;
items in blue are items for consideration or notes to myself
about the course. ]
I. The Context of Bentham’s Moral Philosophy:
a. Introduction: Jeremy Bentham (1748 -1832) is the founder of
utilitarianism which establishes the Principle of Utility:
“[T]hat principle which approves or disapproves of every action
whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have
to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose
interest is in question”
This use of happiness is associated with pain/pleasure- making
it a hedonistic tradition. This is also a consequentialist
approach. The action is right/wrong dependent upon the
probable result. Trolley Car Problem Video. Another way of
phrasing this is the Greatest Happiness Principle: We should do
the greatest good for the greatest number. When un-packed,
this means: When considering whether an action is moral or

7. immoral (or deciding among alternative options), we need to
consider the effect that the decision will have upon the level of
pain/pleasure of every sentient being that is likely to be
effected.
The application seems pretty straightforward, but Bentham
offers a “utilitarian calculus” to undergo to arrive at the single
correct moral option among those under consideration. Some of
the foundations of the position include: equality of
consideration – everyone’s pleasure and pain needs to be
considered equally, sentience (the ability to experience pleasure
and pain) is the moral groundwork and consequently applies to
several non-human animals as well, and policy/rule based
government should be the standard – allowing for administrative
discretion increases the chances of corruption and favoritism.
b. Elimination of Asceticism: Bentham utilizes and argument by
elimination in an attempt to defend / establish utilitarianism.
This process considers all potential options and eliminates all
but one; it operates like a disjunctive syllogism. He begins by
trying to eliminate asceticism. This process he describes as
giving preference to pain over pleasure and is principally
targeting “pernicious religious doctrine” which extolls the
virtue of suffering. Bentham believes this leads to suffer for no
good reason and can create unnecessary anxiety and guilt.
Surely, the suppression of things like access to contraception on
aesthetic principle serves on one’s interest and seems wholly
irrational (129).
c. Elimination of the Principle of Sympathy and Antipathy:
Next, Bentham deals with a morality based on sympathy and
antipathy. In the case of conflicting duties and intuitions we try
to work out what is most important. We do a sort of cost/benefit
analysis, but (unlike utilitarianism) there does not seem to be an
overriding principle to use as the scale of comparison.
II. Clarifying Utilarianism:

8. a. Introduction: There appears to be two things going on with
Bentham’s position: 1) a theory of the good – which tells us
what sort of things are good and bad in the world and 2) a
theory of the right – which focuses on our actions and tells
which of those are right and wrong. Utilitariarnism is the
theory that the right thing to do is always to bring about as
much good as possible. So what is the Good?
b. Bentham’s Theory of the Good: Bentham understands the
good in terms of happiness and happiness in terms of pleasure
and pain as bad. There are two potential controversies: 1)
Bentham offers a variety of explanations for pleasure by
dividing them into several categories one of which includes
taking pleasure in the misfortune of others and 2) claims that
pleasure is exclusively good does not seem well defended (even
if pleasure is a self-evident and universal good).
c. Measuring Happiness: Bentham utilized a simple unit of
pleasure, which he called a utile. Utiles would then be assigned
to the probable effect on sentient beings according to six
features: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (proximity
in time), fecundity (ripple effect) and purity (pleasure will
follow pleasure). Some questions emerge: 1) what do we mean
by a utile and how do they get applied across such different
categories? 2) why should proximity in time be a deciding
factor (are future pleasures less important than more immediate
ones)?, 3) how do we make interpersonal comparisons of utility
[I might know how something is likely to effect my
pain/pleasure threshold, but can I do this for others?].
Regarding the later maybe we can get close enough. Research
on happiness relies upon self-reported responses and seems to
have some reliability, but two people feeling “7/10” may not
amount to being equally happy.
III. Utilitarianism and Equality for women:

9. a. Introduction: The popular use of the term “utilitarian” today
seems to mean something like “dull efficiency” and calling
someone utilitarian is often intended as an insult. This is not the
way utilitarianism as a moral tradition is meant. Mill developed
rule utilitarianism along with Harriet Taylor after suffering a
nervous breakdown in his 20s. Taylor likely helped with JS
Mill’s treatise on women.
b. The Subjection of Women: Written in 1869, The Subjection
of Women, catalougues the pervasiveness of male domination of
women, particularly in conventional marriage and examines it
detrimental effects on human happiness. Curiously, of the four
primary arguments for increased equality, only one is actually
focused on the effects that the subjugation has on women. The
arguments are: 1) it is bad for men to grow up believing in their
superiority, 2) by not allowing women to work, society is
harmed by cutting down the talent pool, 3) a woman’s
dependence upon her husband limits the husband’s freedom to
be adventurous, and 4) women in subjugation suffer “the
weariness, disappointment, and profound dissatisfaction with
life…[which] dries up the principal foundation of human
happiness” (136). The utilitarian theory demands liberation
from oppression.
IV. Justifying Utilitarianism
a. Introduction: How utilitarianism’s claim that maximizing
pleasure is the ultimate good is a challenge to justify. They
take this to be a self-evident fundamental axiom, which is a
type of thing that “just is” and does not really admit of proof.
Still, there have been some attempts. Bentham, we have seen,
attempted to do so through an argument from elimination.
Critical Reasoning – Bentham
i. Note that if there are not just three types of moral theory,
Bentham has created a false dilemma in his argument.
ii. Note also in his critique of “sympathy and antipathy” he
dismisses it for not having a formula for decision making. This

10. should get us to the conclusion that it needs a formula, rather
than that the entire tradition should not be considered.
iii. Note also that there are other moral theories not considered
that require us to not deny happiness for no good reason and
provide a formula for determining what is moral.
b. Mill’s Proof: “The only proof that something is audible, is
that people hear it…In like manner, I apprehend that the sole
evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is
that people actually desire it (138)” and “each person’s
happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness,
therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons” (138).
Critical Reasoning – Mill
i. Note there are two claims: 1) happiness is desirable and 2)
general happiness is a good to aggregate to all persons (139).
ii. Mill’s argument related to the first claim is an argument by
analogy, which requires that the things being compared are
similar in all relevant respects. Moore argues that the analogy
does not work since “desirable” does not mean “capable of
being desired” like “audible” means “capable of being heard.”
Desirable implies that it “ought” to be sought, not that it is.
Does an alcoholic wanting a drink make it desirable?
1. Counter-argument: Having a drink may be desirable, but
having sobriety may be more desirable. Does it on balance
promote greater benefit?
a. Counter-counter argument: The assertion that overall benefit
related to harms determines desirability, to prove that we all
desire what brings us overall pleasure/harms is a circular
argument. A circular argument occurs when one assumes in a
claim of support what they are intending to prove.
iii. Mill’s argument related to the second claim is that the self-
evident desire that everyone seeks their own happiness leads to
the conclusion that we should seek to do what provides for the
best aggregate happiness for all of those effected, is a fallacy of

11. irrelevant conclusion.
V. Chapter Review
Please read the chapter review, consider the discussion
questions, and be familiar with the key terms from the chapter
and from class:
Utility Argument by elimination Argument by analogy
Circular Reasoning Theory of the Good Problems with
measuring happiness
Utilitarian Calculus Theory of the Right Bentham, Mill,
Taylor
Greatest Happiness Principle Mill’s 4 arguments in The
Subjection of Women
Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility
What is utilitarianism? Why was utilitarianism created?
What is the primary difference between “act” and “rule”
utilitarianism?
Writing Assignments – General Guidelines:
Written responses are to be not less than 250 qualified words
(excluding titles and citation – if any). Many more words will
almost certainly be useful in demonstrating a mastery of
understanding of the assignments. Students are encouraged not
to rely upon resources, but to use their own words to better
demonstrate understanding of the material. Remember, as well,
please, that the Writing Assignment prompts / directions are the
assignment to be addressed, not just recommendations.
Academic/professional writing should be double spaced, cited if
appropriate, well-reasoned (no formal nor informal fallacies)
and almost entirely error free. Please allow yourself plenty of

12. time to critically consider and develop your arguments.
Directions for Writing Assignment #2: Utilitarianism and
Argument Regarding A Critique:
1) Identify this assignment page and download it
2) Be sure that you fully the concepts to be addressed and
exactly what is being asked of you
3) Formulate your response in this document in the section
titled “Begin Your Response Here”
4) Save your new document once complete
5) Open the assignment folder, attach your document, and
submit it by the deadline.
Multiple submissions are allowed, but only the one that is most
recent at the time of assessment will be considered.
Writing Assignment #2: Utilitarianism and Argument Regarding
A Critique:
In the section below titled “Begin Your Response Here,”
address the following:
Component 1: Explain what utilitarianism is including the
difference between act (classical) and rule utilitarianism. What
are some of the objections that have been presented in our text
and in class concerning this tradition? Please do not just list
these without also providing an explanation in your own words.
Component 2: Identify one of the critiques of utilitarianism and
provide a well-reasoned argument about whether the critique is
legitimate. Build an original argument either defending
utilitarianism against the critique or defending the critique. The
argument should demonstrate original thought. Remember that
an argument requires a conclusion and several clear and
relevant claims of support for the conclusion.
Begin Your Response Here:
[12 pt font; double spaced]