Comparing Devlin to Mill.

Through the course of this paper the author will try to demonstrate, depicting both sides of the argument, the reasons in which a follower of John Stuart Mill 's "Utilitarianism" would disagree with the events taking place in Ursula Le Guin 's "The One 's Who Walk Away from Omelas."

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) is recognised as one of the most prolific thinkers of the nineteenth century, whose liberal political philosophy has influenced intellectuals and political theorists for decades (Feinberg, 1986). At the same time, Mill's utilitarian approach to society at large reveals sensibilities and moral considerations that enhance his liberal attitudes in the most surprising ways. According to Losurdo (2011), it is widely believed that Mill is one of the greatest opponents of paternalism, supporting individuals' liberty and autonomy. However, Mill is also accused of overt sentiment, ignorance of natural rights, or a diversion from original conceptions of Utilitarianism. As a result, this essay is concerned with his conception of individuality, as discussed in his On Liberty (1859), investigating how this notion, based on individual liberty and autonomy, opposes social control and paternalistic policies.

The Principle of Legal Paternalism justifies State interference with personal rights to protect individuals from self-inflicted harm and to guide them toward their own good. Legal Philosophers have often drawn a distinction between “soft” and “hard” Paternalism. “Soft” Paternalism restricts an individual’s actions in circumstances where the conduct is insufficiently voluntary. In contrast, "hard" Paternalism restricts an individual's actions in circumstances where the conduct is sufficiently voluntary.

Society is built and run on social and moral obligations and while these two are closely related, both impact cultures around the world in different ways. Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Mill’s On Liberty demonstrate the relationship these obligations have with successful and unsuccessful social constructs. For the purposes of this paper, a moral obligation is a consideration of what is right¬¬¬ and wrong and can vary depending on pressures from external sources such as religion, while a social obligation is a responsibility the individual has to act to benefit the best interests of their class as well as supporting the stability between society and the individual. Marx and Mill differ greatly in their opinions on the role and effects of

Hook. Both John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer approach moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree on the importance of selflessness, the idea that we can end human suffering, and the significance of consequences. However, their views conflict concerning the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism since Singer accurately recognizes the discrepancy between a life of absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also wrestles with the intricate concept of motive.

As one develops, the values that he/she support mature in sync with mental, physical, and emotional developments. With this maturation, individuals create a moral code that is based on the values and beliefs that are deemed most important. Whether the creation of this code of conduct is intentional or not, it nonetheless serves as a guide for the way in which one behaves. These moral codes ensure the maintenance of order within one’s own life. By token of consideration, Raymond Chandler’s “Red Wind” follows Philip Marlowe as he subscribes to a moral code of chaotic good, wherein he behaves in a seemingly unprincipled manner. However, he does so as a mode of ultimately serving the common good. Comparatively, society as a whole also creates regulations to live by with the intention of maintaining order amongst the masses. The court of law, for example, ensures that individuals behave ethically and in favour of the common good. Without these general regulations, society succumbs to chaos. With reference to the text, the world that Marlowe lives in is one that supports moral systems that are in opposition to his own. The interaction between one’s personal values (moral code) and social sanctions (e.g. the law and societal ideals), may result in a shift in an individual’s belief system. The following essay will explore the ‘world’ that Chandler has created for the characters, Marlowe’s moral code in response to the world in which he lives, and finally, the state that Marlowe

The second major part of Mackie?s article convincingly undermines the plausibility of the realist belief in independent and objective values. Mackie attacks the belief from two major angles, the origin of objectivity-laden morals and the supposed nature of objective values, each of which is really a two-pronged approach.

Explain in your own words the logic of Mill’s argument, and critically discuss whether happiness should be the criterion of morality.

     John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that certain cases require the intervention of either society as a whole or its individual members. He breaks

In this essay I will assess and evaluate Mill’s concept of justice through the principles of utility. I will argue to defend Mill’s attempt to reconcile justice with the utilitarian principles he has explained by first summarizing these concepts and by proving utility.

Mill wastes no time in articulating the central thesis of On Liberty; he states, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (69). Mill, then, does not make the individual more important than society, but he separates the individual from society and articulates a realm of existence in which society, or the community, should have no power over the individual. Mill states, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection…His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (68). Society, therefore, has no right to intervene in the private life of any person, unless they act in such a way that prevents others from enjoying their own rights.

I will be explaining John Stuart Mill’s view on ethics. This includes explaining the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, happiness, unhappiness, quality of pleasure, lying, and the relevance of time with his view. I will then explain how I agree with the principle of Rule Utilitarianism. I will also consider the objection of conflicting rules in Rule Utilitarianism as well as that of negative responsibility, giving my response to each.

In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.

In his influential book, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, J.L Mackie begins with the bold claim that “[t]here are no objective values.” Mackie holds that moral judgements are beliefs and that moral statements are propositions, meaning that they are capable of being true or false. However, for Mackie, all such propositions are false, and thus one is in error about what they are actually claiming. In this paper I will summarize two of Mackie’s arguments for why we should accept error theory: the argument from relativity and the argument from queerness. I will then explain two possible positions error theory leaves us with respect to morality —abolitionism and fictionalism —followed by some objections to both. While these positions have certain benefits, their strict forms, I will argue, are ultimately unsatisfying with the addendum that fictionalism seems the more tenable.