These slides are for a course called Introduction to Philosophy at the University of British Columbia-Vancouver, Canada. They talk about Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5 of John Stuart Mill's book called Utilitarianism. There is also a bit at the end about act and rule utilitarianism

1. J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)
PHIL 102, UBC
Summer 2015
Christina Hendricks
Except parts noted otherwise, this presentation is licensed CC-BY 4.0

2. John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873, England)
Mill “had a lifelong
goal of reforming the
world in the interest
of human well-
being”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill
/

3. Groups on moral questions
http://is.gd/PHIL102Mill
Read the question assigned to your group
(see instructions on the doc) and write down:
• Your own answers to the question
• What you think a utilitarian who agrees
with Mill would say about it

4. When asking what is right/wrong
morally, what to evaluate?
Person Action Consequences
• Intention
• Motive
• Habitual
disposition
to act in
some ways
• What kind of
act is it?
• What was
actually
done?
• What results
from the
action?

5. Consequentialism
“whether an act is morally right
depends only on consequences (as
opposed to the …intrinsic nature of the
act or anything that happens before the
act).”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on consequentialism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#ClaUti

6. Hedonistic consequentialism
• Value hedonism: “all and only pleasure
is intrinsically valuable and all and only
pain is intrinsically disvaluable.”
-- Internet Encycl. of Philo:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/#SH1b
• Hedonistic consequentialism:
determine moral value of consequences,
and therefore of acts, by how much
pleasure/pain produced

7. Utilitarianism, Chpt 1
“There ought either to be some one
fundamental principle or law, at the root
of all morality, or if there be several,
there should be a determinate order of
precedence among them…” (p. 1).
Why?
What is that principle, for Mill?

8. Overview of Mill’s Utilitarianism
Oversimplified:
we can judge the
moral value of
actions by the
degree of
happiness they tend
to produce for the
sentient creatures
involved

9. Greatest Happiness Principle
“actions are [morally] right in proportion
as they tend to promote happiness,
[morally] wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness” (2)
o “happiness” is defined in terms of
pleasure and reduction or absence of
pain

10. Support for GHP (more in Chpt. IV)
• “pleasure, and freedom from pain, are
the only things desirable as ends” (2)
• Mill on the highest good (5)
• The “end of human action, is necessarily
also the standard of morality” (5)
o Why might this be the case?

11. LC poll
• Do you think utilitarianism, in what
you know of it from the readings and
class so far, is a useful way of
determining which actions are right
and wrong?

12. Different kinds of pleasures
Why does Mill distinguish between
different kinds of pleasures, & what are
they?

13. How do we know pleasures differ in
kind, not just quantity?
Groups:
• What is his answer on pp. 4-5?
• What do you think of it?
Even if you could get the sensual
pleasures fully satisfied, this wouldn’t be
preferable to having less of the intellectual
pleasures
o That’s what those who have experienced
both say

14. Pleasure as only intrinsic value
(p. 2, & Chpt 4)
Use happiness, defined in terms of
pleasure, to evaluate consequences of acts
Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP)
Actual conseq. the
act had?
What the person
intended as
conseq.?
Usual conseq. for
this kind of act?

15. Consequences for whom?
• Sentient beings (5)
• Not the whole world for all actions
(6)
• Impartiality
(5)

16. Role of motive
• Motive doesn’t matter to the morality
of actions (6)
• Still, it would be good if we developed
habitual motives of promoting
happiness of others… (5-6)
o How might we do this?

17. Do we have to calculate
consequences each time?
• No; we can use “subordinate
principles” from the “fundamental
principle” (GHP) (9)
• These are drawn from human
experience of which kinds of actions
tend to promote more/less pleasure &
pain (8)

18. Pleasure as only intrinsic value
Use happiness, defined in terms of
pleasure, to evaluate conseq. of acts
Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP)
Subordinate principles (moral rules) (8-9)
Act R/W?Act R/W? Act R/W? Act R/W?
GHP used to determine subordinate
rules, decide between them if they
conflict re: an action

19. Chpt 4: “proof” for GHP
GHP: “Actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend
to produce the reverse of happiness” (2).
Two premises supporting GHP:
1. “happiness is … the only thing desirable, as
an end” [the only intrinsic good]; all else is
desirable only as means to happiness (14)
2. if so, then we should use the production of
happiness as the test for judging actions
morally right/wrong (16)

20. (1) happiness is the only intrinsically good thing
(2) if happiness is only intrinsic good, use it to
morally judge actions right or wrong
Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP)
Premises supporting (1) (groups & on board)
(2) Mostly just assumed

21. Argument for (1)
1. “happiness is … the only thing desirable, as
an end” [the only intrinsic good]; all else is
desirable only as means to happiness (14)
Groups:
• Read 3rd paragraph of Chpt IV, p. 14
• outline the argument and discuss any
criticisms you have of it
o Write in the section on “outlining and
commenting on an argument from Chpt IV,”
on this document: http://is.gd/PHIL102Mill

22. Overall argument for GHP
My outline of this: written on the
board…

23. Premise (c) on board
What could it mean to say things can be
desired as a means to happiness or as part
of happiness?
Virtudes y Abraham, Flickr photo shared byCarmen Escobar
Carrio, licensed CC BY 2.0
Parliament Ottawa, Wikimedia Commons, edited by Jeffrey
Nichols from original by Steven W Dengler, licensed CC BY SA
3.0

24. Premise (d) on board
H1 H2 H3
Individual happiness
P1 P2 P3
Individual persons
Aggregate of
persons
Arrows =
desire
Aggregate
happiness/
”general
happiness”

25. (1) happiness is the only intrinsically good thing
(2) if happiness is only intrinsic good, use it to
morally judge actions right or wrong
Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP)
Premises a, b, c,d (on board) supporting (1)
(2) Mostly just assumed
pp. 1, 5, 16

26. Chpt V: Utilitarianism & Justice
Two questions addressed in this chapter:
1. What differentiates justice from the rest
of morality?
2. Would utilitarianism allow people to act
unjustly if that would promote more
happiness in a group overall?
o Examples?

27. Some new terms
Morally
obligatory/required
What must be done
Morally permissible/optional
What can be done
Morally prohibited
What must not be done
Supererogatory
praiseworthy but
optional

28. • What would promote
general happiness, that
ppl should be
compelled to do or
avoid (obligatory or
prohibited)
• What ppl should be
compelled to do/avoid
depends on utility
• What would promote
happiness for self or
group that ppl should
not be compelled to do
or avoid
• What we like or dislike
ppl to do, but not that
they must do them (not
morally obligatory or
prohibited)
• Examples?
Morality/duty Prudence/expedience

29. Morality
• Duties of perfect
obligation
• Connected to one or
more rights
• What counts as a
right depends on
utility
• Justice/rights focus
on security: “the most
vital of all interests”
(21)
• Duties of imperfect
obligation
• Not connected to
rights
• Example: generosity
Justice Rest of morality

30. Must we maximize happiness?
For Mill, is it morally required to produce as
much happiness as possible, in all our
actions?
Supererogatory
(20)
So if we don’t
we’re morally
wrong?

31. Second question this chapter
answers
Would utilitarianism allow people to act
unjustly if that would promote more
happiness in a group overall?
How would Mill respond, and why?

32. Still…
Are there exceptions to rules of justice?
• Yes and no… (22)

33. LC poll
• Now that we’ve finished talking about it,
do you think Mill’s version of utilitarianism
is a useful way to determine what’s
morally right/wrong?
• Why/why not?
• Do you have any questions about it left
over?

34. Act vs Rule utilitarianism
A distinction that didn’t exist when Mill was
writing
• AU: moral value of acts judged by utility
of consequences of those (kinds of) acts
• RU: moral value of acts judged by
whether they follow rules; rules judged by
utility of their consequences if generally
accepted and/or followed

35. Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism
Principle of utility
(e.g., Mill’s GHP)
Act R/W?
Principle of utility
(e.g., Mill’s GHP)
Act R/W? Act R/W?
Rules with high
acceptance and/or
obedience utility
Act R/W? Act R/W? Act R/W?