J.S. Mill

Utilitarianism

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

It may be objected, that many who are capable of the higher pleasures, occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the lower. But this is quite compatible with a full appreciation of the intrinsic superiority of the higher. Men often, from infirmity of character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it to be the less valuable; and this no less when the choice is between two bodily pleasures, than when it is between bodily and mental. They pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly aware that health is the greater good.

 

I am not a Utilitarian. The author’s title is Utilitarianism. I found this quote fitting to describe why the men involved in sex crimes or who purchase women or who believe women to have no worth (or people in general).

The author of this quote grew up a devout Utilitarian follower of Jeffrey Bentham. Bentham believed the individual had no rights, but it was the Happiness (and lack of pain) of the whole society that was Morally correct and what the whole society needed to thrive in law and justice.

While he still wanted to believe in Utility, as an adult, he had conflicting ideas that the individual rights mattered and that “happiness” meant one thing to some and another to others, and that each individual’s rights should be respected, and that they could be respected using the Utilitarian model (I am not in agreement). He was a philosopher, and asking those questions lead movements regarding “individual rights” in the legal and moral sense of justice.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “J.S. Mill

  1. tt says:

    very interesting. now i understand the truth on how people justify their actions.

  2. tt says:

    “Utilitarians argue that justification of slavery, torture or mass murder would require unrealistically large benefits to outweigh the direct and extreme suffering to victims. Utilitarianism would also require the indirect impact of social acceptance of inhumane policies to be taken into consideration, and general anxiety and fear could increase for all if human rights are commonly disregarded.” …………………cult crap? only high authority figures can try to accomplish things to that extent. the bigger you are the harder you fall isnt that the theory? LMAO

  3. tt says:

    Act and rule utilitarians differ in how they treat human rights themselves. Under rule utilitarianism, a human right can easily be considered a moral rule. Act utilitarians, on the other hand, do not accept human rights as moral principles in and of themselves, but that does not mean that they reject them altogether: first, most act utilitarians, as explained above, would agree that acts such as enslavement and genocide always cause great unhappiness and very little happiness; second, human rights could be considered rules of thumb so that, although torture might be acceptable under some circumstances, as a rule it is immoral; and, finally, act utilitarians often support human rights in a legal sense because utilitarians support laws that cause more good than harm.

    • mysterymom7 says:

      The author of this quote grew up a devout Utilitarian follower of Jeffrey Bentham. Bentham believed the *individual* had no rights, but it was the Happiness (and lack of pain) of the whole society that was Morally correct and what the whole society needed to thrive in law and justice.

      While he still wanted to believe in Utility, as an adult, he had conflicting ideas that the *individual* rights mattered and that “happiness” meant one thing to some and another to others, and that each individual’s rights should be respected, and that they *could* be respected using the Utilitarian model. He was a philosopher, and asking those questions lead movements regarding “individual rights” in the legal and moral sense of justice.

  4. Psalms123 says:

    “Gloria in excelsis Deo”
    (Latin for “Glory to God in the highest”)

  5. Psalms123 says:

    Love the philosophy slant of your blog (as of late). Jean Jacques Rousseau was one of my favorite philosophers which I studied in college. Our professor was an engaging and highly intelligent man, Harvard alumnus and Olympic-level rower (crew):

    “Rousseau’s term for this new type of self-interested drive, concerned with comparative success or failure as a social being, is amour propre (love of self, often rendered as pride or vanity in English translations). Amour propre makes a central interest of each human being the need to be recognized by others as having value and to be treated with respect. The presentation of amour propre in the Second Discourse—and especially in his note XV to that work—often suggests that Rousseau sees it as a wholly negative passion and the source of all evil. Interpretations of amour propre centered on the Second Discourse (which, historically, are the most common ones), often focus on the fact that the need for recognition always has a comparative aspect, so that individuals are not content merely that others acknowledge their value, but also seek to be esteemed as superior to them. This aspect of our nature then creates conflict as people try to exact this recognition from others or react with anger and resentment when it is denied to them. A more careful reading of both the Second Discourse, and especially of Emile, indicates that a more nuanced view is possible. According to this more nuanced view, amour propre is both the cause of humanity’s fall as well as the promise of its redemption because of the way in which it develops humans’ rational capacities and their sense of themselves as social creatures among others. Although Rousseau held that the overwhelming tendency, socially and historically, is for amour propre to take on toxic and self-defeating (‘inflamed’) forms, he also held that there are, at least in principle, ways of organizing social life and individual education that allow it to take on a benign character. This project of containing and harnessing amour propre finds expression in both The Social Contract and Emile. In some works, such as the Second Discourse, Rousseau presents amour propre as a passion that is quite distinct from amour de soi. In others, including Emile, he presents it as a form that amour de soi takes in a social environment. The latter is consistent with his view in Emile that all the passions are outgrowths or developments of amour de soi.

    Although amour propre has its origins in sexual competition and comparison within small societies, it does not achieve its full toxicity until it is combined with a growth in material interdependence among human beings. In the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau traces the growth of agriculture and metallurgy and the first establishment of private property, together with the emergence of inequality between those who own land and those who do not. In an unequal society, human beings who need both the social good of recognition and such material goods as food, warmth, etc. become enmeshed in social relations that are inimical both to their freedom and to their sense of self worth. Subordinates need superordinates in order to have access to the means of life; superordinates need subordinates to work for them and also to give them the recognition they crave. In such a structure there is a clear incentive for people to misrepresent their true beliefs and desires in order to attain their ends. Thus, even those who receive the apparent love and adulation of their inferiors cannot thereby find satisfaction for their amour propre. This trope of misrepresentation and frustration receives its clearest treatment in Rousseau’s account of the figure of the European minister, towards the end of the Discourse on Inequality, a figure whose need to flatter others in order to secure his own wants leads to his alienation from his own self.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s