Topic 1c + 1d + 1e: John Stuart Mill, Capital Punishment, Justifying Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill’s defense for the emancipation of women

• it is bad for men to grow up falsely believing in their superiority over women

• By excluding women from the important professions, society loses out on half the potential talent pool

• The economic dependance of wives on their husbands gives husbands a duty to adopt safe, conventional lifestyles

• When women are emancipated they will experience the personal enjoyment of living an autonomous life

Capital Punishemnt relevant considerations

Moral dilemma: should the government use capital punishment?

Four steps for using utilitarianism to answer moral dilemmas

1. Identify the possible options

2. Identify what would happen with each option

3. Assign utilities to each option

4. Identify which option provides the greatest expected utility

Identify the possible options (capital punishment)

Mill identifies 3 possible options:

• use capital punishment for any person convicted of murder

• Use capital punishment for a person convicted of murder when the convictions meet the highest possible standard of proof

• Those found guilty of murder should remain in prison for the remainder of their lives

Identify the consequences for each option (capital punishment)

Our aim is to increase the total sum of happiness

• we want to identify which options results in the largest net benefit

Assign probabilities to each possible outcome (capital punishment)

If we are certain about the outcome, how do we determine which option is better?

One solution is to estimate the probabilities of the different possible outcomes

Assign utility value to each option (capital punishment)

This should take into account the probabilities of the different possible outcomes, as well as the value of each outcome

Identify which option provides the greatest expected utility (capital punishment)

The option that we should choose is the pursuit of action with the greatest expected utility

Mill’s proof of the PU

Part 1: show that happiness is desirable

Part 2: show that “general happiness” is a good to the aggregate of all people

Part 1: Happiness is desirable (and the issue with it)

Mill reasons that something is intrinsically valuable only if it is desirable

In showing happiness is desirable, he will have made progress in showing that happiness is intrinsically valuable

Problem:

Disanalogy → we dont show that something is desirable by showing that people desire it, sometimes we desire things that are not desirable

Part 2: General Happiness is a Good to the Aggregate of all People

Mill takes himself to have established that happiness is desirable → every person desires to have happiness → each person’s happiness is a good to that person → therefore if each person’s happiness is a good to that person, then the general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all people

Problem with Step 2: General Happiness is a Good to the Aggregate of all People

It is unclear what Mill means by the aggregate of all people

What maximizes the aggregate happiness is not necessarily good for each member of the aggregate