FEB 4 - Higher quality pleasure (HQP) Who decides?...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
FEB 4 Monday FEB 4 Different Positions on the legal enforcement of morality 1. always permissible (there are no rights that overwhelm morality) 2. permissible only when basic liberties are not at stake (Bowers, majority) 3. always impermissible (Lawrence, majority?) Bentham’s hedonistic util. may lead to “always permissible” view What about Mill’s revisionist util.? Mill’s interpretation of utility Utility is “pleasure itself, together with exception from pain” Contrast with Bentham, quality of pleasure not just quantity, matters
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Higher quality pleasure (HQP) Who decides? Competent judges Objections to Mills Util. Distribution between SQP and LQP Many who are capable of HQP prefer LQP Happiness unattainable so why pursue it? Virtuous life requires sacrificing happiness Util is too high for humanity Util. is immoral No time to calculate consequences of action on general happiness Util. doesnt take indiv. Rights and liberties seriously...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/02/2008 for the course LS 107 taught by Professor Song during the Spring '08 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online