In pulverisations Utilitarianism, he moves away from the traditional Benthamite argument which measures all types of pleasure in the same way, to stating that round pleasures ar of higher lever and therefore should be favourite(a) over the so-called lower pleasures when reservation ethical decisions. The main criticism to this idea is the question of whether lav still remain a true hedonist and utilitarian, and if his ideas genuinely hold any weight.
One of the obvious strengths of Mills argument is that it addresses Benthams problem in being able to compare certain takes. If all pleasures are of equal quality it could be hard to decide the righteousness course of action if they had a similar effect on similar amounts of multitude. Mill answers this incomparability problem by arguing that some pleasures, i.e. intellect over animal pleasures, or mental over bodily pleasures, are higher in value, and should be preferred in moral choices, as the amount of enjoyment from those who experience these pleasures will far outweigh any number of people enjoying the lower pleasures. However, from this a new problem arises of how to decide and tick between types of pleasure.
Mill states that to know what the different kinds of pleasure are you fill to have experienced both (known as the informed gustatory modality test).
However, how can someone who has experienced both know whether it is more than pleasurable to just have experienced the pleasures of the senses, and vice versa? This brings groovy difficulty in the principle of higher/lower pleasures and in any case in choosing the right course of action. Not only this, plainly there is no clear standard to which something could be considered all a higher or a lower pleasure. Mill is vague in the use of these terms, and they here are non mutually exclusive. One thing...
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment