CH. 2 CRITICAL READING QUESTIONS
What does Mill mean by “happiness” and how is that relevant to utilitarianism? Mill defines happiness as the ultimate good pleasure. The relevance to utilitarianism is the actions right or wrong which maximize the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness.
How does Mill respond to critics who denigrate utilitarianism as “worthy of swine”? That utilitarianism place the superiority of mental over bodily pleasures
How does Mill argue that some pleasures are better than others? As irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it that is the more desirable pleasure.
What does Mill mean when he claims that the utilitarian perspective is that of a “benevolent spectator”? They read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. Placing the interest of every individual as nearly as possible in harmony to the whole.
What is happiness, and is Mill correct to take it as the end toward which everything else is a means? Happiness is pleasure; the ultimate good. Not entirely correct by putting happiness as to what is right its seems limiting to an overall scheme of things.
Is Mill correct to claim that “it is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others? That is something that is pretty universal as far a something being desired or valuable whether it be pleasure or jewels or cars etc.
Is it better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied? Yes, in that the fool only knows his side where as by comparison Socrates knows both sides.
Is the utilitarian perspective of a “strictly impartial” benevolent spectator a proper one for Morality? Not really by being strictly impartial or benevolent would not make for a proper foundation for morality. Think have to be a part not stand off to the side.
What might it be...