No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
Utilitarianism has had an unfortunate history. Its most influential exponents, Bentham and John Stuart Mill, set it out in such a way as to expose it to facile criticism and even to ridicule, and it has never fully recovered from this ill-omened start. In spite of the criticism and the ridicule, however, it still bulks large in ethical studies, and many people still have a hankering sympathy with it.
page 245 note 1 Nic. Ethics 1095 a 18. He actually defines “the good” as “happiness.”
page 245 note 2 See below.
page 245 note 3 See Stevenson, Ethics and Language, p. 82.
page 245 note 4 Buddhism, as I understand it, seems to be an exception.
page 245 note 5 Principles of Morals and Legislation, Ch. I, para. III.
page 246 note 1 To save space and unnecessary complication I usually omit reference to unhappiness and pain when speaking of their opposites, but such reference is implied where it is relevant. Later I shall consider whether pleasure and pain are equally important, but I do not wish to raise this point here.
page 246 note 2 For a different approach, see Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind, pp. 107–10.
page 247 note 1 Cf. John Stuart Mill's complaint that the Utilitarians are much misunderstood (Utilitarianism, Ch. I). In this he passes continually from “happiness” to “pleasure” and back again.