Linguistics[ edit ] The Prussian philologist Wilhelm von Humboldt — originated the idea that language and worldview are inextricable.
For its publication he brought old manuscripts into form and added some new material. Mill planned from the beginning a separate book publication, which came to light in One must not forget that since his first reading of Bentham in the winter ofthe time to which Mill dates his conversion to utilitarianism, forty years had passed.
Taken this way, Utilitarianism was anything but a philosophical accessory, and instead the programmatic text of a thinker who for decades had understood himself as a utilitarian and who was profoundly familiar with popular objections to the principle of utility in moral theory.
Almost ten years earlier Mill had defended utilitarianism against the intuitionistic philosopher William Whewell Whewell on Moral Philosophy. The priority of the text was to popularize the fundamental thoughts of utilitarianism within influential circles.
This goal explains the composition of the work.
After some general introductory comments, the text defends utilitarianism from common criticisms "What Utilitarianism Is". After this Mill turns to the question concerning moral motivation "Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility".
What makes utilitarianism peculiar, according to Mill, is its hedonistic theory of the good CW 10, Utilitarians are, by definition, hedonists. For this reason, Mill sees no need to differentiate between the utilitarian and the hedonistic aspect of his moral theory.
Today we routinely differentiate between hedonism as a theory of the good and utilitarianism as a consequentialist theory of the right. Utilitarians are, for him, consequentialists who believe that pleasure is the only intrinsic value. Mill counts as one of the great classics of utilitarian thought; but this moral theory deviates from what many contemporary philosophers consider core features of utilitarianism.
This explains why the question whether Mill is a utilitarian is more serious than it may appear on first inspection see Coope One may respond that this problem results from an anachronistic understanding of utilitarianism, and that it disappears if one abstains from imputing modern philosophical concepts on a philosopher of the nineteenth century.
However, this response would oversimplify matters. As mentioned before, Mill maintains that hedonism is the differentia specifica of utilitarianism; if he were not a hedonist, he would be no utilitarian by his own definition.
His view of theory of life was monistic: There is one thing, and one thing only, that is intrinsically desirable, namely pleasure. In contrast to a form of hedonism that conceives pleasure as a homogeneous matter, Mill was convinced that some types of pleasure are more valuable than others in virtue of their inherent qualities.
Many philosophers hold that qualitative hedonism is no consistent position. Hedonism asserts that pleasure is the only intrinsic value. Under this assumption, the critics argue, there can be no evaluative basis for the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.
Probably the first ones to raise this common objection were the British idealists F. Which inherent qualities make one kind of pleasure better than another, according to Mill?
These enjoyments make use of highly developed capacities, like judgment and empathy. This seems to be a surprising thing to say for a hedonist.
However, Mill thought that we have a solid empirical basis for this view. According to him, the best obtainable evidence for value claims consists in what all or almost all people judge as valuable across a vast variety of cases and cultures.
This partly explains why he put such great emphasis on education.J.S. Mill’s Views on Democracy after Vasilis Grollios University of York, UK Abstract In his philosophical anthropology Mill assimilated a moderate form of capitalist values.
Plato believes that only a few people, whom he calls “philosopher kings”, have the right to rule, which seems to contrast with Mill’s idea of democracy.
However, Plato’s philosopher kings are supposed to have the right to pursue a good education and basically anything that the person desires because it will make them a more experienced and better ruler, which are qualities that a liberal state must grant.
Online Library of Liberty. A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets.
Dec 14, · Aristotle vs. Mill: An Individual’s Happiness John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics have very different views on what an individual’s happiness is. Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. John Rawls (—) John Rawls was arguably the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century. He wrote a series of highly influential articles in the s and ’60s that helped refocus Anglo-American moral and political philosophy on substantive problems about what we ought to do.
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc. John Stuart Mill (–73) was the most influential English language philosopher of the nineteenth century. He was a naturalist, a utilitarian, and a liberal, whose work explores the consequences of a thoroughgoing empiricist outlook.
The idea of progress from the Enlightenment to postmodernism is still very much with us. In intellectual discourse, journals, popular magazines, and radio and talk shows, the debate between those who are "progressivists" and those who are "declinists" is as spirited as it was in the late seventeenth century.
In a note to his edition of James Mill’s Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind () John Stuart Mill diagnoses a possible equivocation in his father’s doctrine.