Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Mill's Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart Mill's Notorious Proof. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Editions Rodopi B.V. ISBN 978-90-518-3748-3. Bayles, M. D. (1968). Contemporary Utilitarianism. Anchor Books, Doubleday. Bentham, Jeremy (2009). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Dover Philosophical Classics).
[38] The type of "proof" Mill is offering "consists only of some considerations which, Mill thought, might induce an honest and reasonable man to accept utilitarianism." [ 38 ] Having claimed that people do, in fact, desire happiness, Mill now has to show that it is the only thing they desire.
On Liberty is an essay published in 1859 by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill.It applied Mill's ethical system of utilitarianism to society and state. [1] [2] Mill suggested standards for the relationship between authority and liberty.
Mill's major contribution to utilitarianism is his argument for the qualitative separation of pleasures. Bentham treats all forms of happiness as equal, whereas Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures ( higher pleasures ) are superior to more physical forms of pleasure ( lower pleasures ).
Robert Nozick, a twentieth century American philosopher, coined the term "utility monster" in response to Jeremy Bentham's philosophy of utilitarianism.Nozick proposed that accepting the theory of utilitarianism causes the necessary acceptance of the condition that some people would use this to justify exploitation of others.
Mill's essay is utilitarian in nature on three counts: The immediate greater good, [9] the enrichment of society, [10] and individual development. If society really wanted to discover what is truly natural in gender relations, Mill argued, it should establish a free market for all of the services women perform, ensuring a fair economic return ...
Accused rapist found not guilty because he has ‘sexsomnia’ — engaging in sexual behaviors while sleeping
In On Liberty, J. S. Mill writes that his principle does not apply to persons judged as mentally ill, "barbarians" (which he assimilated to minors) and minors [5] while the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen did not concern women, slaves, foreigners and minors, as they were not citizens.