Utilitarianism puts a great deal of focus on the happiness of the individual. It says that each person is entitled to work toward his own personal gain, and that in doing so, he will actually promote the gain of the group as a whole.
One possible flaw with this argument, at least according to those who disagree with Mill, might be the possibility that what might be in an individual’s best interest could conflict with the common good and could possibly result in actual harm to those affected by the individual’s behavior.
Another possible flaw, Mill presents as an issue of conflicting religious views. While one religion finds it perfectly acceptable to, for example, eat pork, another religion might find it to be not merely disrespectful but outright blasphemous.
I think these are both valid arguments, even considering Mill’s attempts to respond. I really had difficulty understanding the way Mill tried to argue against his opponents and in support of his own theories.
As far as the differing levels of acceptance of Mill’s writings from one country to another, I think it might be easier for Americans to accept the idea of individual flaws because of Americans’ inclination to view behaviors as being inherently individual. Other nations consider society to be more encompassing of the whole, with much less focus on individualism. Because this is the most basic component of Mill’s Utilitarianism, it would make sense that the British, among those of other nationalities, would disagree because of their definitions of their own cultures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Can you explain a bit more about what you found difficult to understand about Mill's response to the issue of Muslims & pork.
Also, most would say that the US inclination toward individualism is, in part, a consequence of Mill's writings. The bigger question is why do you think it is that the US is so much more individualistic to begin with than other countries.
Post a Comment