Why Mill believed that individual freedom ought to be protected?

Mill argued that “an atmosphere of freedom” was necessary to assure all people the opportunity to develop their individuality. He condemned British society of his day for its suffocating conformity.

How did John Stuart Mill View freedom?

Mill said individual freedom needed protection from the government and from social control. According to Mill, protection against the tyranny of the government magistrate is not enough to ensure individual freedom.

Does Mill agree with the Golden Rule?

But perhaps, the best way in which Mill’s principle of utilitarianism coincides with that of the Golden Rule is found in his idea of ‘good character’. Mill argues that the best proof of good character is good actions, and a good moral disposition is not enough. You must ‘do unto others…’ the key word being ‘do’.

What does Mill think about rights?

On Urmson’s interpretation, Mill is really saying that an action is right if it is a token of a type of act that tends to have good or optimal consequences, in which case the Proportionality Doctrine would espouse a form of rule utilitarianism.

How does Mill think we can determine which kinds of pleasure are most valuable?

Mill delineates how to differentiate between higher- and lower-quality pleasures: A pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different pleasure even if it is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the other pleasure.

Did Mill believe in natural rights?

21Naturally, the rights of which James Mill spoke are only legal rights; he could never conceive the existence of pre-legal rights, that can only be metaphysical, and so in open contradiction with Bentham’s theory on the matter: 22 J. Mill, “Jurisprudence”, p.

How does Mill distinguish between things that are rights and things to which we have no right?

Mill argues that justice can be distinguished from other forms of morality by looking at the difference between perfect and imperfect obligations. Imperfect obligations are those that no one person has the right to require of another. Perfect obligations are those that a person may demand of another.

What does Mill say is the proper relationship between the equal rights of persons and general social utility?

A right means that a person has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of that right. However, if one wants to know why society should defend this right, Mill argues that the only reason is one of general utility.

Which of the following does Mill say is a common meaning of the term justice?

Mill argues that justice is:

valuable because it is socially useful. valuable by a standard that exists independent of utility. at odds with social utility.

On what grounds does Mill think some pleasures can be judged higher or better than others?

According to Mill, pleasure is the only thing desirable for itself and not as a means to some other end. Mill argues that all pleasures are qualitatively the same. Mill argues that we are incapable of choosing a good we know to be less valuable than some alternative.

How is Mill’s version of utilitarianism similar to and different from that of Jeremy Bentham’s?

What are the main differences between Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism and which theory is better? Both thought that the moral value of an act was determined by the pleasure it produced. Bentham considered only quantity of pleasure, but Mill considered both quantity and quality of pleasure.

How does Mill respond to the objection that utilitarianism is a morality fit only for animals?

It is, according to the objection, a view of the good that is fit only for swine. Mill responds that it is the person who raises this objection that portrays human nature in a degrading light, not the utilitarian theory of right action.

What is Mill’s response to the objection that happiness Cannot be the rational purpose of human life and action since happiness is not attainable?

What is Mill’s response to the objection that happiness cannot be the rational purpose of life? Mill rejects the idea that a person must be able to always be happy in order for happiness to be the rational purpose of life.

How does Mill respond to the objection that utilitarianism requires the sacrifice of principle to expediency?

Finally, Mill argues that sacrificing happiness is only desirable if it will lead to more happiness generally. He rejects the value of sacrifice in itself. However, many people do see value in an ascetic life, independent of the consequences it produces.

What does Mill mean when he claims that motives have nothing to do with morality of an action?

Motives as criterion for rightness/wrongness: Acc to Mill (and utilitarians in general) the agent’s motives are irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of his actions. Thus, ‘the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent.

How does Mill understand the concepts of motive and intention and which does he think is more important for his theory?

Intentions tell you what you should do to maximize happiness, whereas motives explain why you feel it is important to do something. Mill says that outcomes are more important than motives. Also, Mill realizes that you cannot always help people, and that you have very little chance to affect them most of the time.

What is Mill’s view on the importance of motives for determining the moral value of an action?

Mill explained in his essay that according to Utilitarianism, the moral value of an action relies solely on the outcome of the event, making the theory consequentialist (55, Bennett). Furthermore, he believes that intentions behind actions are insignificant. The only thing that is important is the good deed.

Adblock
detector