Talk:Utilitarianism (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

This article has comments here.

The following is not about the book Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill:

Utilitarianism (Latin utilis, “useful”), in ethics, the doctrine that what is useful is good, and consequently, that the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of its results. The term utilitarianism is more specifically applied to the proposition that the supreme objective of moral action is the achievement of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This objective is also considered the aim of all legislation and is the ultimate criterion of all social institutions. The utilitarian theory of ethics is generally opposed to ethical doctrines in which some inner sense or faculty, often called the conscience, is made the absolute arbiter of right and wrong. Utilitarianism is likewise at variance with the view that moral distinctions depend on the will of God and that the pleasure given by an act to the individual alone who performs it is the decisive test of good and evil.

It's at most a stub for an article on utilitarianism, the ethical theory. But there's already a fleshed-out Utilitarianism article. I've moved all of the above to this discussion page and put in its place a stub on the book Utilitarianism. —Radgeek 01:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Francis Hutcheson[edit]

The greatest happiness principle was actually first devised by Francis Hutcheson in his Inquiry into Virtue. - 192.52.218.34 00:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle & Mill mean two very different things by "Happiness"[edit]

Mill is talking about our common understanding of happiness.

Aristotle is translating the Greek word "εὖδαιμονια," which has less to do with happiness as we understand it and more to do with a person's ability to be a human well. This is emphatically not what Mill means, and Aristotle would more likely consider Mill's happiness to deal more with pleasure, something Aristotle does not consider the highest good.

So perhaps that last paragraph in the article should be edited or removed?

Aristotle also meant happiness as almost a way to characterize someone (i.e. my grandpa was a happy man), as supported by his claim that one could not be called happy until after they had finished their life (kicked the bucket). This is in stark contrast to the happiness of J.S. Mill which people attained in their lifetime by being smart or altruistic. All the same I think that comparison between the two is fitting if it's done right. --Polsky215 (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)