Mill’s Utilitarianism

1. List any four of the instances in which Mill responded to critics’ objections, and
   give a brief description of each of those responses (perhaps a couple of sentences
   for each). (approximately 100 words total)
   On happiness not being the rational aim of human life because it is unattainable, Mill
   says that unhappiness is caused by selfishness and a lack of mental cultivation. Hence, happiness
   for everyone is possible if education and social circumstances were different. On the claim that
   virtuous people have become virtuous by renouncing happiness, Mill agrees that it is largely true
   and that those who have done so did it as a sacrifice for the greater good, maybe for the
   happiness of others. To critics who say utilitarianism leaves people “cold and unsympathetic,”
   Mills states that utilitarianism does not allow the rightness or wrongness of an action be
   determined by the doer of the action. Hence, in his view, utilitarianism is a criticism of all
   morality. Finally, on the claim that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine since its moral foundation
   is the human happiness and not the will of God, Mill says it depends on your understanding of
   God. If God aims for the happiness of all creatures, then utilitarianism is the most religious of all
   doctrines.

Surname 2

2. What does Mill say is the ultimate sanction of the greatest happiness morality
   (or utilitarianism)? What is its basis; how did it develop? Also say a bit about
   how it works. (approximately 100 words total)
   A philosophy should integrate consequences for those who break the rules it proffers.
   Mill states that if a person is given a principle that is in disagreement with general custom, the
   person will not respect the values enshrined in the principle. To Mill, no action is right unless it
   contributes not only to a person’s individual happiness but also to the collective happiness.
   Education can make people see general good as moral right. Thus, education can “make the
   mind, any mind, of well-developed feelings, work with, and not against, the outward motives to
   care for others.” He states that this is subject to the existence of external sanctions that act as a
   binding force on the character of the individual.
3. Critics of consequentialist/utilitarian theory say that it sometimes requires its
   followers to do actions that could be considered “unjust.” How do
   consequentialists/utilitarians respond? (approx 100 wds )
   While the view advanced by John Bethany on the principle of Utility has been
   misunderstood to be a promotion of the sacrifice of the rights of the minority for the sake of the
   majority, Mill argues against this. In his essay on Utilitarianism, Mills states that individual
   rights are “the most sacred and binding part of morality.” Thus, it becomes apparent that if
   individual rights are held in higher esteem than any other moral norms, that utilitarianism does
   not condone the unjust act.

Surname 3

4. In Singer’s article, what was the main objection to the position he takes, and
   how did he address it? Do you think his explanation/arguments successfully
   overcome the objection? Why or why not? (75 wds.)
   The objection to Singer’s position concerns proximity and distance. People feel that since
   the crisis is not at their backdoor, it is ultimately not their responsibility or they have only so
   much obligation to sort it out. Singer counters this by saying that if we subscribe to the principle
   of impartiality, universalizability, and equality, then we would not discriminate against people
   because they are far away from us. In my view, this is a compelling argument for helping out,
   regardless of the distance.
5. Here is a hypothetical thought experiment you are to analyze:
   You are a city prosecutor, and a terrible crime has been committed in your city. A 7-year
   old girl has been kidnapped, brutally raped, tortured, and strangled to death. The case has
   become something of a cause célèbre, and people are up in arms, outraged, clamoring that
   someone be caught and prosecuted. The police have investigated thoroughly, but all
   investigations have turned up no leads. Your police chief advises that he has determined
   that unless something is done soon, riots will occur with extreme violence planned, and that
   several deaths are to be expected; many other leads and reports confirm this. Yesterday a
   severely mentally retarded homeless man was picked up by the police after a complaint by
   a restaurant that he was lurking about the premises, eating scraps out of the dumpster.
   There is absolutely no evidence against this man of the crime against the child. If you frame
   him, and plant or fabricate evidence that may result in conviction, you will be able to avoid
   the riots and expected deaths that will otherwise result.
   Would this be moral or immoral? Why? (125 wds)

Surname 4
At face value, utilitarianism seems to advocate that one does what would produce the best
consequences. However, this is subject to knowing what things are good and bad, whose good
the actions will maximize, and whether actions are right or wrong based on their actual or
foreseeable consequences. For the case in question, the first consideration would be if there was
nothing else the agent could have done instead would have brought about more well-being. If no
other course of action exists, the next consideration would be if there is an actual reason to
believe that riots and deaths would occur. If the consequences are a foregone conclusion, then
the logical choice would be to do what was best for the community and frame the homeless
person. The utilitarian view holds that morality is not absolutist, and depending on
circumstances, some acts that may be deemed immoral could be permissible.