Mills Inductive Reasoning Essay

sense, yet this is not the issue, and not how Mill thought it should be

Mill has an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” standpoint. If a person commits a terrible crime, they are nowhere near reaching a desirable end, nor do they have capacity to be virtuous, as Aristotle would say. If somebody is guilty of murder, then life in jail is too mild of a punishment for the crime he committed. It goes the other way around too. If somebody is guilty of theft, then life in jail may be too hard of a punishment for that particular crime. Mill believes the only efficient punishment is one that is exactly equal to the crime. He doesn’t think a murderer should be allowed to live on with the potential to murder again. Another thing Mill focuses on is general responses among a society. He believes the only way to find desirable pleasure is to ask people and get a general response. So if you asked the family of a murder victim what they would like to see happen to the murderer, a probable general response would be to have him sentenced to death as well, and that is exactly what should happen.

4) Inductive Reasoning- Reasoning in which ideas come at the end. Global commentary and periodic sentences are inductive.

“A central tenet of RCA is to identify underlying problems that increase the likelihood of errors while avoiding the trap of focusing on mistakes by individuals” (AHRQ, 2012). The emphasis of RCA is on error prevention. It is a structured process of gathering data regarding the event, analyzing the information, and finding solutions to the problems to prevent reoccurrences. A

from the results. Here is an example of a conclusion for the acetic acid experiment used in

Throughout his work Mill explains his principles and what he believes our laws should look like. In Mill’s harm principle he states

Mill highlights that a, a fool or pig, can only have a different opinion because it knows only one side of an issue. But a Socrates or human, knows both sides of an issue, and therefore can have a different opinion based on valid justification- which can only be achieved haven taken all aspects into regard. Therefore Mill's argument is a good one because it logically argues that people who have experienced both types of pleasures (intellectual

Mill’s harm principle of ““One should not interfere with other people’s lives unless those people are doing harm to others” (p.G3), is in other words, if a person do not cause harm to others, there is no reason to prevent his/her actions. Mill’s belives that an individual is the supreme sovereign of his/her own acts. Even when the decisions taken may be some harm upon him/her, the responsibility of these actions is only on the individual.

First, Mill pointed out that everyone has their own judgments and no one has the right to decide an issue for all people. The liberty of an opinion is often up for debate because we are all confident in our own rightness, even though that confidence is not justified. “They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” (Mill, II.3). Mill pointed out that silencing a potentially true idea hurts society because it is shielded from that possible truth. You never can

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

Firstly, Mill would argue that Pre-crime and the use of Pre-cogs would be morally correct if the standards of the utility were used, because the outcomes of these practices have a more positive effect than a negative effect, such as saving many human lives. This is evident, when in the movie there is an advertisement that states that there hasn’t been a murder in Washington D.C in six years. Even though a small percentage of those potential murders might not have gone through with it, according to Mill, the lives of many far outweighs this. Not only that, but we would have to put into account the positive effects based upon the Hedonic Calculus. Based on Hedonic Calculus, we would have to wonder how many people would be affected by the use of Pre-cogs and Pre-crime, the intensity of those affected, how long the affect would last, and so on. If we use this method, we would have to account for the number of lives saved, added to the

One objection that Mill replied to was that there isn’t enough time to really weigh the options before needing to act. His response is that we effectively have the result of prior human knowledge from those lived before we did.(517) He’s clear in stating that this doesn’t make that true, but because it is the result of human reasoning and thought it can be improved upon.(517)

of the discourse on method" (8), and provides an analysis of the common elements comprising such discourses. They are

My main disagreement with Mill’s Harm Principle is that indirect harm does not apply. Mill writes, “In many cases, an individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, necessarily and therefore legitimately causes pain or loss to others, or intercepts a good which they had a reasonable hope of obtaining (1009).” Who is he to say that while pursuing an object pain or loss is necessary at all? The definition of necessary, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is absolutely essential or needed to achieve a certain result or affect. I do not think that in any way it would be necessary to cause harm while trying to achieve a goal. There are so many ways to go about to achieve a goal without causing harm to someone. However, if for example, you and a coworker are in position for a promotion, you are both fighting against each other for the position, you receive the promotion and unintentionally hurt the other worker, and this harm caused does not put you at fault. If you did something evil or something that would purposely cause the individual to not get the promotion this is intentional and you should be placed at fault. In summary Mill believes that consequential harm will not apply to the harm principle; however I believe that the circumstances of the situation are very important in be able to consider whether or

In addition to Mill’s strong beliefs with liberty and freedom, he deems true a direct correlation between