What does Mill mean by "happiness" in his Greatest-Happiness principle?
I might approach this differently. Consider the relationship between the Greatest Happiness Principle and the concept of higher vs. lower pleasures. I'll push you in that direction... Happiness is pleasure. People desire what is pleasurable, but the only way we know that anything is desirable is because people actually do desire it. No other external factors help us determine what is good, such as an authority figure telling us what we should choose, because for all we know that's someone else's desire. To help us see what kind of desires lead to utilitarian society, Mill divides higher and lower pleasures. Of any two pleasures, when humans are exposed to both, we will choose the higher pleasure. Happiness would then involve more thoughtful pleasures, like pursuit of knowledge, as long as you aren't forced by some arbitrary external standard to desire that pleasure over some other. For Mill, it's less that there is some intrinsic good that makes Socrates' thirst for knowledge better. As in all utility, the good is achieved through preferring the higher pleasure that leads to greatest happiness for the greatest number.
What is Mill's argument FOR the principle of utility?
This is a very good question. The principle of utility is really an axiom upon which the whole of utilitarianism rests. By this I mean it is a completely arbitrary assumption! Mill decided to rely upon what he thought was the most intuitive principle he could conceive of, and he decided on pleasure/displeasuree. Besides, the beauty of utilitarianism is less about the "starting point," and more about the axiological method through which we consider principles. If you deny that the ultimate good is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, then you would be arguing that the "starting point" of utilitarianism isn't a correct one. But I suppose there are many empirical claims you can use (evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, etc.) in arguing for the principle of utility; for instance, how we're constantly seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
What is the greatest happiness principle (the principle of utility)?
the greatest happiness principle is the standard at which utilitarians try to follow. It suggests doing things that will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people.-------According to utilitarianism, UTILITY is the only intrinsic good. Actions and precedents are judged right or wrong in proportion to their propensity to produce the most happiness or pleasure, for the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) believed that utility could be measure quantitatively (in what he called a hedonistic calculus), and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) believed in a qualitative approach which essentially involved checking your perceived judgments with others for a second opinion, so to speak. Later utilitarians, like Rashdall and Sidgwick, devised alternative ways of measuring utility. Bentham believed that seeking happiness was an inherent part of human nature, and that happiness could be measured as a matter of quantity. Each person is their own judge when it comes to happiness, but when it comes to the greatest happiness (or felicity, as he called it), a person can really only be so happy if others around them are happy, too. He called this the greatest happiness (or felicity) principle. The greatest happiness depended upon the circumstances, upon the community in which one finds themselves, and -- this is the reform impulse -- upon how they sought to maximize harmony, comfort, and happiness with their closest friends and neighbors. --------------------------
What is the Principle of Utility?
haha its not only about electrical bills, tho that is a good example. utilitarianism is that the moral worth (or just plain worth really) of an action or decision is the sum of all the good and bad of all that are affected by the action. a real life example of this, and i hope i don't offend anyone here, is china's one child policy. individuals give up the right to have more than one child. overall you can argue that the slowing of the growth of the what was the most populous nation in the world was best for the nation as a whole. very utilitarian in a way that makes sense to all of us. this is also true for the slow growth movement. one good argument against utilitarianism is that we often can't agree to the evaluation of the good or the bad consequences of any given action. in any case. in the case of the free market economy, some argue that the free market is the best - let everyone pursue the good as they see fit. the downside of that argument is that there are great disparities of wealth and poverty, the weak suffer, but arguably less than all the good the market has done. this argument against utilitarianism is summed famously by the seminal economist J Maynard Keynes - "In the long run we're all dead men"; its hard to impose a long term view on the good (for instance) when some people need to eat right now. certainly the poor will not generally buy into the free market argument. there are many arguments, but utilitarianism persists because it generates very tangible plans.
PHILOSOPHY QUESTION what is the differences between the principle of utility and Kant’s categorical imperative?
Principle of utility was used in Jeremy Bentham's philosophy, while the categorical imperative is therefore Immanuel Kant's. According to Bentham, the Principle of Utility is basically seeking happiness for yourself, and for the wider community. And It is also the principle which would disapprove or approve of your action that would lead/not lead to happiness for the wider community. When your action gives more pleasure than pain, the action conforms to the principle of utitlity. On the other hand, Kant believed that the only good thing without qualification is a good will, and a good will, will bring about happiness. Kant's categorical imperative is actually an unconditional moral law that applies to ALL rational beings (it only refers to humans. not other things like rocks/trees/plants) and it should be INDEPENDENT of any personal motive or desire. One universal example of a CI: Cheating is wrong. Kant's CI mainly focuses on the intention of the act, and not the effect of the action. Your intention has to be purely out of good will, where you do the act with respect to the moral law. For example: I will not cheat in my exam because cheating is wrong. This is an example of an act done out of a good will, where the categorical imperative is ''Cheating is wrong''. An example of an act that is not done out of respect for the moral law: I will not cheat in my exam because I will get punished. This is NOT an act done out of a good will because you avoided cheating for the fear of being punished. See the difference in the intentions? You acted according to your personal motive, where the motive/desire is not wanting to get punished. Hence, this doesnt qualify to be a morally right action. In summary, Kant's CI is mainly focusing on the intentions, and these intentions have to be out of a good will. Bentham's POU is mainly focusing on the effects, or as Bentham say, happiness, your act brings to yourself and to the wider community.
What is the difference between utilitarianism and hedonism? How are they similar?
Hedonism holds that physical pleasure for one self is the only good thing, and more is always better. Utilitarianism holds that the action that produces the most utility is the only good thing, and utility may be defined as greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people, not just one self. And not just physical pleasure like sex, there can be higher forms of pleasure like learning about a subject of your interest.So for a hedonist, the best thing you could ever hope for is probably have your brain taken out and hooked into a machine that electronically stimulates it with a constant orgasm for all eternity. Without ever getting tired of it of course, so it won't ever actually be painful or boring. But for a utilitarian, the best thing you could do is hook everyone one in the world up to a virtual reality like the Matrix, but without them knowing so, because people don't like that idea. You also wouldn't just give them constant sex, but instead you simulate whatever life they find most enjoyable, for some it may be constant sex but for others it may be I dunno, planting the best garden with unlimited resources.
What is an example of the principle of utility?
Your example uses a classical altruistic standard. The principle of utility is broader. "The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Hence, utility is a teleological principle. This once again raises some of the same basic issues of associated with hedonism, as discussed in the earlier section on Teleological Theories. Recall that a hedonist believes that the good life consists solely in the pursuit and experience of pleasure or happiness. The feelings of pleasure and pain are biological events involving our central nervous system, which are controlled by our cerebral cortex. We obviously experience pleasure when we perform certain acts that fulfill biological functions such as eating, drinking, and having sex. We also experience pleasure when we perform certain intellectual activities, such as reading a philosophy textbook, playing guitar, or drawing a picture. We sometimes, but not always, experience pleasure when we do the right thing. Conversely, we experience pain when these functions are left unfulfilled. Many utilitarians believe that pleasure and pain are objective states and can be, more or less, quantified. Hedonistic terms like intensity, duration, fecundity, and likelihood, imply that pleasure can be measured quantitatively, perhaps on a scale from 1-10, as part of a hedonistic calculus." (From source) For more discussion, see the source.
What are the requirements for happiness according to mill?
Mill defines "happiness" to be both intellectual and sensual pleasure. He argues that we have a sense of dignity that makes us prefer intellectual pleasures to sensual ones. He adds that the principle of utility involves assessing an action's consequences, and not the motives or character traits of the agent. Mill argues that the principle of utility should be seen as a tool for generating secondary moral principles, which promote general happiness. Thus most of our actions will be judged according to these secondary principles. He feels that we should appeal directly to the principle of utility itself only when faced with a moral dilemma between two secondary principles. For example, a moral principle of charity dictates that one should feed a starving neighbour, and the moral principle of self-preservation dictates that one should feed oneself. If one does not have enough food to do both, then one should determine whether general happiness would be better served by feeding my neighbour, or feeding oneself.