Later within the second chapter of ultilitarianism, Mill says that it doesn’t matter how you get to happiness, just as long as we get there. In another section he also says that what matters overall is our immediate surroundings when calculating the degree of happiness after an action If those two points are accurate, I would like to know: Why he is standing up for utilitarianism so much? He feels the need to approach utility’s nay sayers by disproving there points, but if happiness is acquired by another theory, why does following utility matter? Is ultiliy the only way? Also why isn’t the word immediate included in the theory of utility? that may not be a question for him, but he can say that that his altered version of utilitarianism should include the amount of happiness in the immediate sense… that would make understanding utilitraianism a lot easier…..
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Simply Intricate :-P
%d
Then we bring into question how immediately after the action is done will we judge the person’s actions. Time may always be the problem with utilitarianism because time isnt exact in every judgement, but would we even want time to be so exact in the first place? If we all abided by utilitarianism and it said that 22 hours after an action is done is the only time period we have to judge a person it would be horrific. In the case of a murder or theft, the person may not be caught for a week, but the family of the person who was murdered still wants justice and so does the person who was robbed. Judgement doesnt have a set time period so realistically neither can Mill’s theory.