Advertisement

Mill’s Ambivalence about Duty

  • David O. Brink
Chapter
Part of the Philosophers in Depth book series (PID)

Abstract

Consequentialists agree that deontic notions such as obligation, permission, and prohibition should be understood in terms of evaluative notions about the good. For instance, duty or obligation should be understood as serving or promoting the good in some way. In a familiar slogan, consequentialists believe that the good is prior to the right (Rawls, 1971). Utilitarians are consequentialists who conceive of the good in terms of happiness or well-being. Within the constraints set by consequentialist and utilitarian essentials, there are important family disputes. Consequentialists, in general, and utilitarians, in particular, disagree over the justification of consequentialist and utilitarian essentials, the proper conception of the good, in general, and happiness or well-being, in particular, and the exact relation between the good and the right.

Keywords

Moral Reasoning Optimal Rule Chapter Versus General Happiness Rule Utilitarianism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin, John ([1832] 1954) The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, H.L.A. Hart (ed.) (New York: Noonday Press).Google Scholar
  2. Bentham, Jeremy ([1789] 1970) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J. Burns and H.L.A. Hart (eds) (London: Athlone Press).Google Scholar
  3. Berger, Fred (1884) Happiness, Justice, and Freedom: The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill (Los Angeles: University of California Press).Google Scholar
  4. Lyons, David (1994) Rights, Welfare, and Mill’s Moral Theory (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  5. Rawls, John (1971) A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  6. Rawls, John (1999) ‘Two Concepts of Rules,’ reprinted in his Collected Papers, S. Freeman (ed.) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Robson, J.M. (ed.) (1969) The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill: Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, Vol. X (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).Google Scholar
  8. Robson, J.M. (ed.) (1974a) The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill: A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive Part 1, Vol. VII (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).Google Scholar
  9. Robson, J.M. (ed.) (1974b) The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill: A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive Part 2, Vol. VIII (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).Google Scholar
  10. Robson, J.M. and Stillinger, J. (eds) (1981) The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill: Autobiography and Literary Essays, Vol. I (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).Google Scholar
  11. Sidgwick, Henry (1907) The Methods of Ethics, 7th ed. (New York: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  12. Urmson, J.O. (1953) ‘The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill’, Philosophical Quarterly 10, 33–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© David O. Brink 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David O. Brink

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations