philosophy question.....

College Confidential Community
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 philosophically-minded folks out there who could offer a critique of my ideas about Mill, or my topic, or both?</p>

<p>thanks!</p>

2

<p>hahaha so as for personal responsibility, it only applies inasmuch as it encourages individual humans to do good for the society. If it does not encourage individual humans to do good for the society, it is effectively useless. but even if we are influenced by our genes and environment, there still is such a thing as personal responsibility - the person is able to take care of himself and to produce more than he takes from society - it does not necessarily entail a belief in free will.</p>

<p>"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>Yeah, that tends to be a belief of liberal philosophers in the 19th - 20th centuries. A critique of that, of course, can be based on evolutionary psychology (humans evolved to cooperate and to be moral, and their pleasures come out of functions that provided selective advantage for our ancestors).</p>