Mills vs. Rawls John Stuart Mill’s view on moral decisions rests on the utility associated with an action’s happiness. Mill’s primary belief in the “Greatest Happiness Theory” which can also be called Utilitarianism is that those actions are desirable and right if they tend to promote happiness and pleasure and discourage pain. Mill says that all other things may be valued either for the amount of pleasure they involve, or for how influential they are in leading to pleasure. Human beings experience pleasures natural only to themselves, that animals do not have the capabilities of understanding or experiencing. These “higher” pleasures are higher in quality, but lesser in quantity.
First proposition I will be discussing is “ one thing is intristically good, namely love; nothing else” only good is good, in and of itself. Actions aren’t intristicaly good or evil, depending on whether they promote the most loving result. Fletcher said that actions are extrinsically good depending on the conseuences or circumstances. Natural law states that actions such as lying are always wrong regardless of the circumstances, but according to fletchers first principles actions such as lying can be justified if the outcome is extrinsically good. The second fundamental priniple is “the ruling norm of a christian decision is love; nothing else”.
Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad. However, they disagreed about our basic moral duties. Unlike Intuitionism, Emotivism does not purport the existence of objective moral facts, truths or duties. Instead it takes
He himself points out three different reactions to this. One might say that the statement is false, even pernicious – this kind of people would see it threatening morality and everything else worthwhile. The others might think it is a trivial truth – seeing it too plain to be worth arguing about. Others might regard it as empty or meaningless, seeing no real issues raised by the question whether values are a part of the fabris of the world or not. Mackie’s claim that values are not objective and not part of the fabric of the world includes several things that could quite loosely be called moral values or disvalues – for example rightness, wrongness, obligation and so on.
A person is not morally responsible for his action if it is “the result of unconscious forces” or “drive” of which the person knows nothing (Hospers, pgs 115,119). Hospers goes on to explain that a “lucky few are sometimes able to overcome” such forces (Hospers, pg. 120). These arguments apply to James Fallon’s circumstances. By his own admission, Fallon credits positive parental involvement for shaping his character therefore inhibiting further development of the “unconscious forces” of heredity from manifesting.
The Free Will Defense In this essay I will talk about why the free will defense is a logical and reasonable solution to the problem of evil. I will first define what the problem of evil is, and then I will define and explain why the free will defense works to solve the problem. I will also bring up and support all criticisms against the free will defense. I will continue by responding to those criticisms, and then conclude by summing up my main ideas. The strongest criticism to the free will defense is that God, being an all-powerful being, should be able to create free agents who make only good choices, freely.
Empiricism brought it to be a consequentialist/teleological theory so it is the outcomes that matter not the motive because motives cannot be measured so they cannot be a part of a moral system. The
Mill roots the Greatest Happiness Principle in his theory of life. The theory of life claims that all moral value can be understood in pleasure, which is intrinsically good, and pain, intrinsically bad. Therefore, an action is right if it produces pleasure and is wrong if it decreases pleasure or produces pain (Module 7.1). Mill’s theory of utility states that the utilitarian standard is not the agents’ own greatest happiness but the greatest amount of happiness altogether (Mill 20). He then goes on to explain that Jesus’ golden rule, do unto others as you would do unto you, is the “perfection of utilitarian morality” (Mill 27-28).
They’re not interested in that . . . that doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests.
Next, Rachels shows the counterarguments against ethical egoism and its inability to be generalized. The argument against begins by saying that it is not in one’s own interest to tell others that they are acting from self-interest. An egoist then can’t believe that ethical egoism can be