Truman And Elizabeth Anscombe's Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill

3-21-17

In chapters two and three of Mill’s Utilitarianism writings he chose to discuss Utilitarianism’s meaning and principles of Utility. As for the definitions of utilitarianism, Mill described it as, “The Greatest Happiness Principle” (Mill 10). Furthermore, utilitarianism seeks to promote the most happiness for the greater good (Mill 10). In accordance to that, actions are considered good actions if they promote happiness (Mill 10). As Mill describes the definition of Utilitarianism, he also discusses the definition of happiness. Mill describes happiness as, “Intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Mill 10). In other words, Mill believes that if someone is performing an action

that provides them with pleasure and it provides happiness to the greater good, then the action is considered morally right. Mill also goes on to talk about the different levels of pleasures that people will seek to find. Furthermore, Mill talks about objections that people may have to these different levels of pleasure and why people choose to seek them. One objection that he brings up is the fact that he disagrees with the argument that as people begin to age, and lose their enthusiasm for life, they become “selfish” (Mill 13). Mill does not believe that this happens because they choose too. In contrast, he believes that this occurs because of their environment and what pleasures present themselves around the people (Mill 13). For example, he believes that, “Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes…and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are either the only ones to which they have access, or the only ones which they are any longer capable of enjoying.” (Mill 13). An example in real life could be a professional rock climber, who finds an extreme amount of joy in rock climbing, finds they are not able to rock climb once they reach the age of 85. This pleasure that they once new and love is gone and they must seek a new pleasure. They could choose golfing for example. As Mill would believe, they do not choose golfing voluntarily necessarily, but use it as a “lower” pleasure to fulfill that missing piece as they are not capable of climbing any more.

4-4-17
Mill discusses the ways that his theory could be argued against. One belief that Mill talks about is that in order for someone to believe something is true, they must either be able to see it (an object) or understand that it actually exists (being able to hear sound)(Mill 35). As for his theory on happiness, Mill believes that each and every person wants to somehow achieve their own happiness (Mill 35). Furthermore, as a whole, because Mill feels that each person is desiring to achieve their own happiness, he believes that as a whole that everyone on this earth is trying to achieve some sort of general happiness (Mill 36). Mill goes on to also talk about the argument that happiness isn’t the only thing that people desire in this world by talking about how virtue (another supposed common want of human beings) is not as widespread as happiness (Mill 36). However, Mill agrees that Utilitarianism does not go against the belief system that humans also seek to find virtue. In fact, he believes that people constantly seek it out (Mill 36). Mill likes to argue that although virtue is not as “universal” as happiness is, it is still to be used to help someone achieve happiness and is therefore important none the less (Mill 37). Mill uses the money example to describe this. I want to break this down even more and use the idea that if people want money, they may need to have some type of career to earn it. Although the career itself might not necessarily provide the person with undeniable happiness, it will provide them with money (a virtue towards happiness according to Mill), which will help them strive towards total happiness in life. This helps support Mill’s argument towards happiness being the only true total thing that humans strive for. It does so by supporting the idea that virtues are only bits and pieces of total happiness. Money is an example of this; it provides people with the ability to buy what ever they want and potentially buy their way towards happiness, but it does not provide them with total happiness, as people still seek other virtues to build their happiness other than money.

4-6-17

The first part of this chapter talks about the moral debate between President Truman and Elizabeth Anscombe.

Their debate was on whether or not the atomic bomb should have been dropped in Japan. Truman said that it was acceptable to drop the bomb on Japan while Anscombe thought otherwise (CITE 119). Anscombe thought this was wrong because she believed that there are set moral rules in this world. Her example was that something terrible such as “Boiling a baby” should not be considered nor should it be done (CITE 119). She felt this way about the atomic bomb as well, she believed that although Truman thought it would help save more lives in the future, the fact that it was dropped and it took the lives on many human beings was completely wrong and immoral. Anscombe’s thoughts on a universal set of rules followed that of Immanuel Kant’s set of beliefs. Moreover, Kant believed that there are “absolute laws” such as that one should not lie (CITE 123). Kant felt this way because he thought that lying would cause people to become doubtful of one another and begin not to trust one another (CITE 123). A major objection to Kant’s idea was the question of, “Suppose it was necessary to lie to save someone’s life? Should we do it?” (CITE 123). Kant would say that we should not lie, as lying to save someone’s life would still break his universal rule that people shouldn’t lie (CITE 123). Anscombe combats this with an idea that she considers to be less defeating. She says that parts of

the rule are considered “universalizable”, and can therefore be made less defeating by making up a rule that will become a universal law that would make sense for the situation (CITE 124). Her example was, “ It is permissible to lie when doing so would save someone’s life” (CITE 124). By saying this, no one gets hurt through the universal moral, in fact, lying could actually save a person’s life in the situation.

4-11-17

This chapter starts out with Kant’s idea that human’s have a sort of superiority towards other creatures. In fact, Kant states, “Animals… are there merely as means to an end. That end is man. We can, therefore, use animals in any way we please.” (CITE 130). By Kant using this sort of language towards animals, it is clear that he feels that humans are the superior species. He feels this way because the of the idea that humans have dignity, which is also thought of as “an intrinsic worth” of themselves (CITE 130). In fact, Kant also thought that animals are used merely as “means to an end” (CITE 131). This is frustrating for me as it sounds like Kant is trying to say that animals are inferior to human beings. I do not believe this is true what so ever. In fact, some animals, such as sharks or cougars occasionally over power and kill humans. However, one objection that I could see against my belief is the fact that we domesticate animals to either provide us with happiness or provide us with help in our daily lives. Dogs are a prime example of this objection. There are many people in today’s world that use dogs as support animals, to provide them with a sense of happiness as a ‘best friend’, and for many working abilities like herding animals. These, as I am sure Kant would agree, are simply means to an end for humans. Going onto a different Kantian idea of, “Acting in a way that could become a universal law”, I believe that this idea makes sense. It is almost like, “Treat someone how you wish to be treated.” (CITE 131).

4-13-17

One of the main topics in this chapter is discussing what makes a good will ‘good’.

Kant would describe a good will as being good if there is ‘good’ in itself (Kant 8). Furthermore, Kant states that it is not good just because of its end result or because of what it wants to result in (Kant 8). To me, this makes sense. For example, if a person is to help someone walk across the street without asking for anything in return, it could be considered a good will. I believe this because there is ‘good’ in the act, as someone is helping another person without asking for anything in return. Kant also defined his definition of the idea of duty in which he states, “Duty is the necessity of an action from respect for law” (Kant 13). In other words, in order to follow a person’s duty, they must act in accordance to the laws given to them. For example, if someone wants to do good in the world, they should not commit the crime of murder as it would not be acting in accordance to the law and therefore would not be considered a ‘good’ action. Kant specifically believes that this general idea of the law is only within people who are considered to be rational (Kant 14). He says this because he believes that only rational being have respect towards the law and are therefore the only ones who can understand it and have a general idea within them (Kant 14). I can see where this makes sense in some ways, but I can find an objection with it as well. My objection is the fact that I believe that

there are people who do not respect the law, but still understand that it is there. For example, criminals who are put in prison more than one time for the same crime know why they are continued to be put into a prison for breaking the law. Therefore, if they understand why they are being put into prison, they understand that the law is present, even though they have no respect for it and continuously try to break it/go against it.

4-18-17

Within this chapter of Kant, I was really interested in the idea of, “[Acting] as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature” (Kant 31). This has been one of the Kantian ideas that I have agreed with. It is basically saying, “Act how you want others to act” or even, “Lead by example”. One example that Kant gives that could pose a problem with this idea is the idea of suicide. Kant believes that suicide is a way for someone to use themselves as a mean rather than an end (Kant 31). As mentioned earlier in previous chapters, Kant believed that humans should never act as means and only as ends. Furthermore, Kant believes that in theory, suicide, could be considered an act of self love to end one’s feeling of future troubles in life (Kant 32). Kant also goes on to explain that this could never be a law of nature because it would in fact, “Destroy life itself” which would in turn prevent someone from being able to make their life better (Kant 32). I agree with Kant on his reasoning in this situation. If suicide was to become a universal law, it would become acceptable to terminate one’s own life, which is an act of selfishness in a lot of ways. I also don’t see how suicide could be considered an act of self love. I believe it is an act of selfishness and is something that should never become a universal law for this reason. Taking one’s own life will not make anyone’s life easier, in fact it will end up hurting a lot of other people which would therefore go against Kant’s belief in doing something purely out of the good in it and therefore not be a goodwill as its ‘end’ in itself does not promote anything good. I also believe that suicide would go against Kant’s belief of a human being superior over everything else. It shows that some humans are weak and are therefore inferior to other creatures in the world. It shows that some humans are weak because rather than face trouble or fear, they choose to end it all at once without ever knowing what could have been.