No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Difficulties in Utilitarianism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
Extract
Utilitarianism has had an unfortunate history. Its most influential exponents, Bentham and John Stuart Mill, set it out in such a way as to expose it to facile criticism and even to ridicule, and it has never fully recovered from this ill-omened start. In spite of the criticism and the ridicule, however, it still bulks large in ethical studies, and many people still have a hankering sympathy with it.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1954
References
page 245 note 1 Nic. Ethics 1095 a 18. He actually defines “the good” as “happiness.”
page 245 note 2 See below.
page 245 note 3 See Stevenson, Ethics and Language, p. 82.
page 245 note 4 Buddhism, as I understand it, seems to be an exception.
page 245 note 5 Principles of Morals and Legislation, Ch. I, para. III.
page 246 note 1 To save space and unnecessary complication I usually omit reference to unhappiness and pain when speaking of their opposites, but such reference is implied where it is relevant. Later I shall consider whether pleasure and pain are equally important, but I do not wish to raise this point here.
page 246 note 2 For a different approach, see Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind, pp. 107–10.
page 247 note 1 Cf. John Stuart Mill's complaint that the Utilitarians are much misunderstood (Utilitarianism, Ch. I). In this he passes continually from “happiness” to “pleasure” and back again.