Interpretations of Mill’s Utilitarianism

Abstract

Professor Urmson’s article ‘The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill’ in The Philosophical Quarterly for January 1953 [Vol. 3, No. 10 (reprinted above)] is a most interesting and stimulating piece of work. The main point Urmson makes is that previous critics have interpreted Mill to hold, as G. E. Moore certainly did hold, that It is always the duty of every agent to do that one, among all the actions which he can do on any given occasion, whose total consequence will have the greatest intrinsic value’ (Moore, Ethics, p. 232). But, on Urmson’s view, Mill’s real position was as follows. ‘A. A particular action is justified as being right by showing that it is in accord with some moral rule. It is shown to be wrong by showing that it transgresses some moral rule. B. A moral rule is shown to be correct by showing that the recognition of that rule promotes the ultimate end (sc. the greatest happiness of the great est number)’ [p. 35 (p. 183 of this volume)]. I think in the second clause there are two slight amendments to be made.