John Stuart Mill

[Guest ASelameab]

For my Ethics course I am currently reading John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism". The idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" (abbreviated g.g.g.n.) seemed to me a very simplistic idea (and I didn't ever give it much thought). However, as I began to read his work, I became very impressed by his intellectual rigor. Mill speaks of the g.g.g.n. (in "Utilitarianism") not in the political sense, but rather in the ethical one (keep in mind I haven't finished the book yet, so I could be wrong). Seeking the alternative which maximizes pleasure (which I take to be synonomous with happiness) is an idea employed by a vast amount of philosophers (implicitly in their works). He describes a "hedonic calculus" which determines, through a list of various criterion, which action produces the highest amount of pleasure. His writing are very reminiscent of Aristotle's ("phronimos" vs. "man who has experienced both types of pleasures"); in addition to his very deliberate and concise writing style. Without having read his political treatises, however, I can already anticipate the leap from that to socialism. For someone who has read his works, is it possible to appreciate his ethical ideas apart from his political ones?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

For my Ethics course I am currently reading John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism". The idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" (abbreviated g.g.g.n.) seemed to me a very simplistic idea (and I didn't ever give it much thought).  However, as I began to read his work, I became very impressed by his intellectual rigor. Mill speaks of the g.g.g.n. (in "Utilitarianism") not in the political sense, but rather in the ethical one ... For someone who has read his works, is it possible to appreciate his ethical ideas apart from his political ones?

What do you mean by "appreciate?" Do you mean "agree with?"

[Guest ASelameab]

What do you mean by "appreciate?" Do you mean "agree with?"

←

Yes, and advocate.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Seeking the alternative which maximizes pleasure (which I take to be synonomous with happiness)

Why do you take the two to be synonimous?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

What do you mean by "appreciate?" Do you mean "agree with?"

Yes, and advocate.

I must say, Amse, I am a bit confused. When you came here just two months ago you told us that when you were first introduced to the works of Ayn Rand that you "soon after devoured all of AR's fiction and non-fiction, and devoted myself to her principles." You listed a vast array of reading that you did, and said you were "bored" and wanted to find essays that were "more philosphical[sic] challenging" than what ARI puts out. You also indicated that Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism course should be "required listening." And now you want to advocate the notion of "the greatest good for the greatest number?" What happened to the foundation of Ayn Rand's development of ethics?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Amse, The Ayn Rand Lexicon includes two articles that should interest you:

- "Mill, John Stuart," with four excerpts from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.

- "Utilitarianism," with two excerpts from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.

These excerpts should provide you with ideas that may help in your analysis of the writings of Mill. As usual, each article concludes with cross-references to other articles in ARL.

[JRoberts 0]

For someone who has read his works, is it possible to appreciate his ethical ideas apart from his political ones?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", Dr. Peikoff says:

There is only one standard to guide a thinker in defining the "right" social system: man's code of moral values, i.e., the principles of ethics.  Politics rests on ethics (and thus on metaphysics and epistemology); it is an application of ethics to social questions. 

How do you propose to appreciate one without the other?

[Guest ASelameab]

Seeking the alternative which maximizes pleasure (which I take to be synonomous with happiness)

Why do you take the two to be synonimous?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure. It just seems to me that if Mill was referring to pleasure as such, his system would be pretty shallow. Am I wrong in my accessment?

[Guest ASelameab]

I must say, Amse, I am a bit confused. When you came here just two months ago you told us that when you were first introduced to the works of Ayn Rand that you "soon after devoured all of AR's fiction and non-fiction, and devoted myself to her principles." You listed a vast array of reading that you did, and said you were "bored" and wanted to find essays that were "more philosphical[sic] challenging" than what ARI puts out. You also indicated that Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism course should be "required listening." And now you want to advocate the notion of "the greatest good for the greatest number?" What happened to the foundation of Ayn Rand's development of ethics?

I am not sure what you are trying to say. My views on ethics when I made that statement and now are the same . I am simply trying to evaluate philosophers as they come up in my Ethics class. The way I understand the idea of the g.g.g.n refers to decisions to be made among conflicting choices; but on the level of the individual. The guiding principle (if I am correct in my understanding of Mill's position) is man's pleasure. I don't want to put words in his mouth (which is why I posted in the first place), so I want to know if his ethical views are consistent with Objectivism.

[Guest ASelameab]

Amse, The Ayn Rand Lexicon includes two articles that should interest you:

- "Mill, John Stuart," with four excerpts from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.

- "Utilitarianism," with two excerpts from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.

These excerpts should provide you with ideas that may help in your analysis of the writings of Mill. As usual, each article concludes with cross-references to other articles in ARL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't think of checking there. Thanks!

[Guest ASelameab]

In "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", Dr. Peikoff says:....

How do you propose to appreciate one without the other?

←

I understand that; I understood that when I first posted. Again, I don't now much about his political views, so I don't know exactly what he meant by "socialism". For example, "liberalism" in the 19th century means something completely different now. My question was posed in such a way that I wanted to know if, for someone who has read his works, whether his ethical theories have any merit.

[Guest ASelameab]

Let me re-interate my position. I do NOT advocate g.g.g.n. in ANY social sense. I apply it exclusively to the individual and his choices (ex. choosing which action will make him the most satisfied). In that sense, I don't regard there to be any conflict between AR and Mill. Additionally, I think that for that small philosophical achievement (perhaps not even made by Mill, perhaps it is Bentham's) we can commend him. This is all resting on the assumption that when Mill said "pleasure" he could have meant "happiness".

[JRoberts 0]

I understand that; I understood that when I first posted. Again, I don't now much about his political views, so I don't know exactly what he meant by "socialism".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Socialism of the 19th century hasn't changed much from the Socialism of today: especially in ideals and goals.

This is all resting on the assumption that when Mill said "pleasure" he could have meant "happiness".

And here is the crucial issue: from what do you base your assumption?

[Guest ASelameab]

You also indicated that Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism course should be "required listening."

←

And for the record I never said that.

[Guest ASelameab]

The Socialism of the 19th century hasn't changed much from the Socialism of today: especially in ideals and goals.

And here is the crucial issue: from what do you base your assumption?

←

To be honest, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt - probably because I like his writing style so much. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I am very eager to find out.

[Guest ASelameab]

The Socialism of the 19th century hasn't changed much from the Socialism of today: especially in ideals and goals.

←

Perhaps as a whole; but until you have read Mill's work on politics (which you may have, but you didn't specify), you cannot comment on them.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

And now you want to advocate the notion of "the greatest good for the greatest number?" What happened to the foundation of Ayn Rand's development of ethics?

I am not sure what you are trying to say. My views on ethics when I made that statement and now are the same . I am simply trying to evaluate philosophers as they come up in my Ethics class. The way I understand the idea of the g.g.g.n refers to decisions to be made among conflicting choices; but on the level of the individual.

Ayn Rand's ethics advocates rational self-interest, whereas, whether applied in the context of an individual or a group, at root Mill's Utilitarian ethics has a hedonistic base. Mill is quite explicit in the essay you are reading: early-on in chapter 2, "What Utilitarianism Is," Mill states,

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.

This is hedonism, plain and simple.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Amse, what Stephen just underlined is precisely the reason I asked you earlier about pleasure and happiness; the two are profoundly not interchangeable, and what Mill defining as his terms shows it to very clearly to be hedonism. In other words, Mill did not define pleasure in some "enlightened" way where some higher values are involved, which could have been possible if he simply used a wrong word but meant "happiness" instead. He defined pleasure in the most base way possible -- a sort of animalistic pursuit of positive sensation and avoidance of negative sensation. There's nothing vague about what he means there.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

You also indicated that Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism course should be "required listening."

And for the record I never said that.

Oh, I see. It is from one of those posts where you messed up the attributions and I did not delete that post as I now routinely do. My mistake. (Not that "required listening" is a bad thing to say about Understanding Objectivism. )

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Let me re-interate my position. I do NOT advocate g.g.g.n. in ANY social sense. I apply it exclusively to the individual and his choices (ex. choosing which action will make him the most satisfied). In that sense, I don't regard there to be any conflict between AR and Mill. Additionally, I think that for that small philosophical achievement (perhaps not even made by Mill, perhaps it is Bentham's) we can commend him. This is all resting on the assumption that when Mill said "pleasure" he could have meant "happiness".

I just gave you a quote early-on from Mill's essay, in which he states that by "happiness" he means "pleasure" ("By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."). This is not just simply in conflict with Ayn Rand's ethics, but fundamentally so.

[Guest ASelameab]

Ayn Rand's ethics advocates rational self-interest, whereas, whether applied in the context of an individual or a group, at root Mill's Utilitarian ethics has a hedonistic base. Mill is quite explicit in the essay you are reading: early-on in chapter 2, "What Utilitarianism Is," Mill states,...

This is hedonism, plain and simple.

←

I see. Based on that, I am not in agreement with Mill. To be fair (and because I have to read the text anyway ), I will finish the essay and post some of my additional thoughts on this tread.

[Guest ASelameab]

I just gave you a quote early-on from Mill's essay, in which he states that by "happiness" he means "pleasure" ("By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."). This is not just simply in conflict with Ayn Rand's ethics, but fundamentally so.

←

I see now. But, even if this text was not assigned to me, I would finish the book before judging Mill over all.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Amse, what Stephen just underlined is precisely the reason I asked you earlier about pleasure and happiness;  the two are profoundly not interchangeable, and what Mill defining as his terms shows it to very clearly to be hedonism. In other words, Mill did not define pleasure in some "enlightened" way where some higher values are involved, which could have been possible if he simply used a wrong word but meant "happiness" instead. He defined pleasure in the most base way possible -- a sort of animalistic pursuit of positive sensation and avoidance of negative sensation. There's nothing vague about what he means there.

To be fair to Mill he does go on to distinguish and elevate the human experience over animal appetities, though this does not change his more fundamental hedonistic flaw.

[Guest ASelameab]

Amse, what Stephen just underlined is precisely the reason I asked you earlier about pleasure and happiness;  the two are profoundly not interchangeable, and what Mill defining as his terms shows it to very clearly to be hedonism. In other words, Mill did not define pleasure in some "enlightened" way where some higher values are involved, which could have been possible if he simply used a wrong word but meant "happiness" instead. He defined pleasure in the most base way possible -- a sort of animalistic pursuit of positive sensation and avoidance of negative sensation. There's nothing vague about what he means there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, based on that single quote. But, as I have previously stated, I will not pass judgement on Mill overall until at least I finish his work.

I'd still like to know how much Mill each of you has read. For those who have read Mill, can you notice some linguistic/stylistic similarities between Aristotle and Mill?

[Guest ASelameab]

I agree, based on that single quote. But, as I have previously stated, I will not pass judgement on Mill overall until at least I finish his work.

I'd still like to know how much Mill each of you has read. For those who have read Mill, can you notice some linguistic/stylistic similarities between Aristotle and Mill?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I should add, esp. in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.