Journal Reflections 2

Journal Reflections 2 - Journal Reflections #2 Sara...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Journal Reflections #2 Sara Martinson February 7, 2011 Mill felt that things that were desirable could be proven desirable by the fact that people actually desired it. Everyone desires their own happiness but that doesnt necessarily mean that happiness is a desirable trait. Happiness is a good thing to each person based on what makes each of them happy. Since happiness is a desirable trait and is a means of conduct, happiness is therefore a standard of morality. Mill not only believed that happiness was one of the topics of morality but it was the one sole characteristic that mattered most. There are many who thought that Mills ideas were flawed and said that Mill basically concluded desire as something we ought to desire or deserved to be desired unlike when Mill said whatever was good was desirable. I guess what this really means by Mills standards is what is desirable is good. Since people found discrepancy in this statement, mostly being that not all things desired really are good things, so Mill clarified that sometimes people do find the things that have lower pleasures than others. Some things only have intrinsic value, or value without also providing pleasure. A simple example is something of beauty. Exquisite paintings would still hold a lot of value, because of the beauty, even if no one saw it. Another kind of pleasure, sadistic, is strictly bad. Bentham believed that malicious pleasure will be good until it leads to pain. Most people consider it to always be bad because it has come to the conclusion that it typically pain. You can decide which path to take based on a process which considers the pleasures and pain of everyone involved. This process means that you go through each person who will be involved and assign a number, positive or negative, based on the degree of pleasure or pain they might experience if you chose that option. They then went on to mention however that you dont necessarily have to do this for every situation youre in, you just need to learn to recognize which is the best path to take based on the outcome. This all seems like a fairly logical explanation for utilitarianism. Many people engage in this without even realizing that they are doing it. They might make a pro/con list for different situations and in this way they are playing out the positive and negatives. I also disagreed with Mill in respect to his hypothesis that everything that is desirable is also good. Not everything by any means is something we desire. Some of the things we as humans lust after are not things we should consider as good, non-Christians and Christians alike. February 9, 2011 One problem laid out against Utilitarianism is the subject of justice. Like they explained in the book, would it be fair for of a population to work extra hard just to a quarter can live extra full-filling lives? If you looked at it logistically, the overall happiness of the population would be greater than if everyone lived lives of equal happiness. Some population would be greater than if everyone lived lives of equal happiness....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/24/2011 for the course PHI 201 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '10 term at Northwestern IA.

Page1 / 19

Journal Reflections 2 - Journal Reflections #2 Sara...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online