The criterion of right and wrong controversy has yet to be concluded though many years of argumentation have ensued. Mill attempts to explain the criterion of right and wrong using the concept of utilitarianism. Utility is not something that should be contrasted with pleasure, but rather pleasure itself with the freedom of pain. The criterion of right and wrongness is introduced for utility as the actions are right in proportion if they promote happiness and are wrong in proportion if they produced the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined by pleasure and the absence of pain and unhappiness is vice versa. However, there are higher and lower pleasures, higher pleasures consisting of when one pleasure is desirable over another even if
…show more content…
What is meant by this passage is something that can only be defined as wrong if the act is considered punishable by law, public disapproval or by guilt. This idea of wrongness differs from what expediency defines as wrong. Expediency is seen as a quick and easy solution that can be applied in all cases similar to a math equation. Expediency of what is wrong is defined as what produces the reverse of happiness in that is causes pain and lacks pleasure. If we approach it as a math equation it is to be looked at as what outcome produces the most amount of pleasure for others versus pain. This can lead to the understanding of one person’s pleasure is worth more than another’s. The problem with this idea is it relates usually to the individual and not a whole group or sometimes what is expedient for an immediate temporary purpose is in violation of a rule whose observance is much more expedient. Lying becomes agreeable by these means as it causes one to escape a temporary difficulty, however it leads to deviation from the truth which can weaken the trustworthiness of human assertion. This idea is based off of Kant’s ethical theory of self-imposed rules, also known as maxims. Mill believes that morality is based off of social rules rather than compared to the individual. Expedient actions may have nothing to do with morals in this case thus the turning point between morality and simple …show more content…
Objectively justice coincides with a party of general expediency while subjectively the mental feeling of justice is different from the feeling that coincides with simple expediency. Mill continues to try and define justice and injustice through 5 different sentiments including it is unjust to deprive someone of their legal rights, it is unjust to deprive someone of something they have the moral right to possess, it is just to receive what a person deserves, but unjust to receive what one doesn’t deserve, it is unjust to violate an agreement with someone, and lastly it is unjust to show favoritism in inappropriate circumstances. He uses these definitions to explain the definition of when something is morally obligated. These duties consist of perfect and imperfect obligations. “The ones that are perfect are the ones that create a correlative right in some person or persons; duties of imperfect obligation are the moral obligation that don’t give rise to any right” (Kant, Page 34). There are two essential ideals that are tied to the idea of justice that relate to the idea of Mill’s view of rightness and wrongness. These include punishing a person who has done harm and the knowledge that there are those individuals who harm has been done too. Mill’s idea of what
What is meant by this passage is something that can only be defined as wrong if the act is considered punishable by law, public disapproval or by guilt. This idea of wrongness differs from what expediency defines as wrong. Expediency is seen as a quick and easy solution that can be applied in all cases similar to a math equation. Expediency of what is wrong is defined as what produces the reverse of happiness in that is causes pain and lacks pleasure. If we approach it as a math equation it is to be looked at as what outcome produces the most amount of pleasure for others versus pain. This can lead to the understanding of one person’s pleasure is worth more than another’s. The problem with this idea is it relates usually to the individual and not a whole group or sometimes what is expedient for an immediate temporary purpose is in violation of a rule whose observance is much more expedient. Lying becomes agreeable by these means as it causes one to escape a temporary difficulty, however it leads to deviation from the truth which can weaken the trustworthiness of human assertion. This idea is based off of Kant’s ethical theory of self-imposed rules, also known as maxims. Mill believes that morality is based off of social rules rather than compared to the individual. Expedient actions may have nothing to do with morals in this case thus the turning point between morality and simple …show more content…
Objectively justice coincides with a party of general expediency while subjectively the mental feeling of justice is different from the feeling that coincides with simple expediency. Mill continues to try and define justice and injustice through 5 different sentiments including it is unjust to deprive someone of their legal rights, it is unjust to deprive someone of something they have the moral right to possess, it is just to receive what a person deserves, but unjust to receive what one doesn’t deserve, it is unjust to violate an agreement with someone, and lastly it is unjust to show favoritism in inappropriate circumstances. He uses these definitions to explain the definition of when something is morally obligated. These duties consist of perfect and imperfect obligations. “The ones that are perfect are the ones that create a correlative right in some person or persons; duties of imperfect obligation are the moral obligation that don’t give rise to any right” (Kant, Page 34). There are two essential ideals that are tied to the idea of justice that relate to the idea of Mill’s view of rightness and wrongness. These include punishing a person who has done harm and the knowledge that there are those individuals who harm has been done too. Mill’s idea of what