Philosophy 361		Ethics		Darwall		Fall 1996

MILL IV
A first statement and elaboration of Mill's "criterion" of right and wrong, 
some criticisms and some replies

I	We turn to Mill's theory of the right--to his view about what makes an action right 
or wrong.  Note first that this is a moral question in a way that the issue of what is 
intrinsically good is not.  Only the conduct of a moral agent can be right or wrong.  

II	Utilitarianism holds that the whether an act is right or not can only be settled by 
reference to the promotion of happiness and unhappiness--the only intrinsically good ends.  
But, as we shall see, there is room for a number of different versions of this general view.  
Indeed, Mill himself says things that suggest two different possibilities. [We won't examine 
the second until next time.]

III	A general argument for utilitarianism (inspired by Mill's "proof" in Chapter IV):
A. What is morally right must be determined by what is good from the moral point 
of view.
B. The moral point of view is the point of view of the moral community 
(everyone).
C. What is good from the moral point of view of the moral community is what is 
good from the point of view of everyone (the "aggregate").
D. What is good from the point of view of everyone (the "aggregate") is the 
aggregate of what is good from the points of view of each person.
E. What is good for each person is that person's happiness.
F. Therefore, what is morally right must be determined by what will promote the 
aggregate happiness of all.

	Recall the "greatest happiness principle" II.par2:  "actions are right in proportion as 
they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."  
This looks like act utilitarianism, or AU for short.

	Act utilitarianism (AU):  An act is right if, of those acts available in the 
circumstances, it would produce the greatest total net good (happiness).

	Note a number of things about this view:
	A.  First, Mill holds that quantity and quality make distinct, independent 
contributions to the intrinsic value of pleasure or happiness.  So we can't suppose that, for 
Mill, AU is to be understood as depending on a crude measure of quantity of pleasure or 
happiness.  Still, if we are going to compare amounts of good in some homogenous way, 
even if good is complex, we will need some measure.  The utilitarian seems committed to 
the proposition that this can be done. 
B.  Note the following features of AU.  Whether an act is right depends on
		1.  whatever effects the act would actually have.
			a.  on whomever it would affect (with each person's 		
				(creature's) happiness being taken account of),
			b.  no matter how remote, in space or time.
		2.   considered on balance (for example, counting happiness as positive 	
		good, and unhappiness as bad (negative good), we sum up 		
		total net happiness). [N.B.:  an act might cause unhappiness, but net 	
		happiness, and vice versa.]
		3.  in relation to whatever other acts one could perform in those very 	
		same circumstances.
	C.  An outrageously simple example:  Suppose you can only do A or B.  Suppose 
that x, y, z would be benefited or harmed to the following degrees from each act.
			x	y	z
	A		5        -2	2
	B		2	2	2
What would AU is the right thing to do?

III	As the above argument shows, AU has an powerful philosophical rationale
	Despite this intuitive appeal, utilitarianism has been perenially subject to various 
different objections, some of which Mill considers in II.par 11-25.  Here are two.  
	
A.  One objection to AU is this:  "there is not time, previous to action, for 
calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness."  
Indeed, one might even complain that AU makes it impossible ever to know what is right or 
wrong, since to know that we would have to know which act, of all that were available in 
the circumstances, would have the greatest total net happiness, taking account of all effects 
of all possible effects from the point of action to the end of time.
	Neither objection proves that AU is false.  They only prove, if true, that if AU is 
true, moral knowledge is very difficult, maybe impossible, and almost certainly not possible 
before the point of action.  But even so the utilitarian could still hold that he is saying what 
the criterion or standard of rightness itself is, not that this is what individuals should always 
be looking to in making decisions about what to do.
	Mill notes that societies have been reflecting on the consequences of different kinds 
of actions since time immemorial, and that they have formulated various secondary 
principles (II.par24) as rough guides or rules of thumb [this is an example of what Rawls 
will call a summary rule in "Two Concepts of Rules" (assigned for next time)]  The act 
utilitarian can then hold the following:  AU determines what makes an act right or wrong.  
But it wouldn't necessarily maximize utility for us simply to act with AU in mind (for the 
reasons the objector presses), so we ought to use secondary principles as guides, although, 
if their verdict ever conflicts with AU, it is still AU which determines what is right.
B.  "As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to 
be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator."  (II.par18) Likewise:  it 
requires that we give no greater weight to the welfare of those who are dearest to us, loved 
ones, family, and so on.
	Mill replies by distinguishing between a rule of action and a motive.  AU purports 
to be the former; it does not say that one should always care equally about all.  

For next time:  read Harman's criticisms of utilitarianism (see syllabus), then read Chapter 
V of Utilitarianism and see if you think Mill has replies. 

**********************************************************************
Text Analysis Project Assignment for 9/24:  Harman, The Nature of Morality, Ch. 2, 
section 4, "The Open Question Argument, pp. 17-20.
**********************************************************************