What is Mill\'s response to the problem posed by some people\'s desire for virtue for its own sake?Tthis is except from Utilitarianism. Solution John Stuart Mill wrote his moral treatise, Utilitarianism, in a period in intellectual history dominated by Aristotelian virtue and Kantian deontology, as well as the intensely conservative political and social climate of Victorian England.Utilitarianism was intended to convince the public of Mill’s first principle. Mill responds to preexisting ethical frameworks, namely virtue ethics, deontology, Christian ethics, and egoism. Except for egoism, Mill invariably shows how other moral theories and values are actually or can become part of his first principle. The most prominent response in the text is his amalgamation of virtue ethics, which spans all of Chapter 4. Mill is successful in his synthesis of virtue ethics, despite philosophical sloppiness and logical fallacies. In his success, Mill crafted an impartial standard which the moral claims of other theories can by compared against. It is in Chapter 4 of Utilitarianism that Mill addresses virtue the most directly. He begins his argument by stating that virtue can actually be an end to human action besides happiness. Mill agrees with his opponents that there are people who desire or approve of acts according to virtue and absence of vice instead of the pleasure and the absence of pain. The reason this is significant is because if this is a descriptive fact, a truth, then it would pose a problem for Mill’s inductive proof of Utility, which hinges on the observation that happiness is desired and therefore desirable. If there are people who genuinely value virtue as the criteria of right and wrong, of how one should act, then, at very least, happiness is not the only first principle, which is what the Utilitarian claims. The solution to this problem for utilitarianism is to either swallow the intuitively unsavory conclusion that virtue is without value, or show that virtue actually has value belonging to, part of, or from happiness. Mill states that where opponents make their mistake is in believing that utility is incompatible with virtue. Mill holds that virtue is not only valuable as a means to pleasure, but in fact as an end in itself. Virtue and happiness are perceived to be different, but Mill attempts to show that this is superficial. It is by seeking virtue disinterestedly and for its own sake that virtue can become part of pleasure, Mill claims. So not only is Mill successful in bringing virtue ethics into utilitarianism, but he’s successful in creating a template by which other theories can be synthesized with utility. Mill’s claim is that all moral sentiments stem from a first principle that does not admit of proof, and that that first principle is the concept of utility. By providing one specific example, virtue, and showing how it actually admits of his general concept, utility, Mill is successful crafting an argument which allows people .

1. What is Mill's response to the problem posed by some people's desire for virtue for its own
sake?Tthis is except from Utilitarianism.
Solution
John Stuart Mill wrote his moral treatise, Utilitarianism, in a period in intellectual history
dominated by Aristotelian virtue and Kantian deontology, as well as the intensely conservative
political and social climate of Victorian England.Utilitarianism was intended to convince the
public of Mill’s first principle. Mill responds to preexisting ethical frameworks, namely virtue
ethics, deontology, Christian ethics, and egoism. Except for egoism, Mill invariably shows how
other moral theories and values are actually or can become part of his first principle. The most
prominent response in the text is his amalgamation of virtue ethics, which spans all of Chapter 4.
Mill is successful in his synthesis of virtue ethics, despite philosophical sloppiness and logical
fallacies. In his success, Mill crafted an impartial standard which the moral claims of other
theories can by compared against.
It is in Chapter 4 of Utilitarianism that Mill addresses virtue the most directly. He begins his
argument by stating that virtue can actually be an end to human action besides happiness. Mill
agrees with his opponents that there are people who desire or approve of acts according to virtue
and absence of vice instead of the pleasure and the absence of pain. The reason this is significant
is because if this is a descriptive fact, a truth, then it would pose a problem for Mill’s inductive
proof of Utility, which hinges on the observation that happiness is desired and therefore
desirable. If there are people who genuinely value virtue as the criteria of right and wrong, of
how one should act, then, at very least, happiness is not the only first principle, which is what the
Utilitarian claims. The solution to this problem for utilitarianism is to either swallow the
intuitively unsavory conclusion that virtue is without value, or show that virtue actually has
value belonging to, part of, or from happiness.
Mill states that where opponents make their mistake is in believing that utility is incompatible
with virtue. Mill holds that virtue is not only valuable as a means to pleasure, but in fact as an
end in itself. Virtue and happiness are perceived to be different, but Mill attempts to show that
this is superficial. It is by seeking virtue disinterestedly and for its own sake that virtue can
become part of pleasure, Mill claims.
So not only is Mill successful in bringing virtue ethics into utilitarianism, but he’s successful in
creating a template by which other theories can be synthesized with utility. Mill’s claim is that
all moral sentiments stem from a first principle that does not admit of proof, and that that first
principle is the concept of utility. By providing one specific example, virtue, and showing how it

2. actually admits of his general concept, utility, Mill is successful crafting an argument which
allows people of all cultures and eras to systematize and compare the worth their moral
sentiments. For both the socially and politically conservative Victorian England and the modern,
liberal, and pluralist West, the concept of utility endures as an impartial means to determine the
practical moral worth of actions and policies.