John Stuart Mill's "moral philosophy"... bah-humbug!

College Majors
1

<p>I'm trying to find a topic for my philosophy term paper, which is due in a little over a month and I haven't even written a word yet! I'm thinking about John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism..... more specifically, his assertion in chapter 3 (I think it's chp. 3, I don't remember right now) that moral beliefs are <em>not</em> innate in a person, but rather are established through the correct type of family upbringing and encouragement through social institutions, etc. </p>

<p>I think he goes on to say that all criticisms of Utilitarian as a moral philosophy are rendered invalid, as long as the ultimate good is being pursued by people whose characters are formed in the correct manner, i.e. by nurturing families and institutions. I thought this was crazy, at first. It seems to me like there is some philosophical sleight of hand at play here, that Mill is incorporating an implicit, underlying morality within his grand Utilitarian scheme. It sounds to me like people have to be somewhat good to begin with (or at possess an orientation towards what is good) before they can pursue the highest good, that which is pleasurable. Mill's utilitarians will only find in pleasure in what is best, and so their characters should be molded so that what they find pleasurable really is 'best'. But this is begging the question, isn't it? </p>

<p>The question I am thinking about addressing is this---- what basis is there for personal responsibility in a Utilitarian morality, if moral belief is (at least in part) a product of environment? I know we sometimes have to address this question in contemporary legal problems, too. </p>

<p>Are any philosophy majors out there who could offer a critique of my ideas about Mill, or my topic, or both?</p>

<p>thanks!</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
what basis is there for personal responsibility in a Utilitarian morality, if moral belief is (at least in part) a product of environment?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It seems to me that when philosophers argue for a system of morality that is a product of society, rather than of some universal law, they argue that morality is there to serve a social function. One of the earliest modern proponents of this idea was Hobbes, who argued for what he called "natural laws": these natural laws were formed out of necessity when humans started to live together and form societies, so they were not innate.</p>

<p>Later on, other philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume argued for similar ideas of a social contract or convention--it is this, they argue, that forms the basis of morality.</p>

3

<p>I did a paper over the summer - contrast Mill and Kant. Look into that.</p>

4

<p>I recommend looking into John Rawls. The first few parts of 'A Theory of Justice' have as good a critique of Utilitarianism as I've ever seen.</p>