Robert Skeehan Ethics Dr.

Johnston 2/24/1013

In response to the first portion of prompt (a) of the essay question, the objection that the utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy only of swine is that, according to this doctrine, there is no higher end in life than pleasure, rather than a nobler object. In response to this, Mill cites the Epicureans. The Epicureans believed they, themselves, were the enlightened ones whilst those who were dissented of this doctrine were the swine. The Epicureans classified their attackers as swine because they believed their attackers insinuate that humans are capable of no higher pleasures than those of swine. Mills further goes on to describe various qualities of pleasure. His proof of quality difference lies in the following scenario: pleasure A has a low quantity, while pleasure B has a far more vast quantity. Though B has the greater quantity, many a person choose pleasure A. This shows a difference in quality of pleasure because the greater quality of pleasure far offset the difference in quantity. Furthermore, Mills goes on to describe how almost no human would be willing to be changed into a beast such as a pig, under the premise that they would experience the full extent of the beasts pleasure for the duration of their life. This is because we as humans have a certain pride, or love of power. We know the extent of pleasure which pigs will be subject to and will be appeased by. We, as humans, also have aspirations to greater goals in life. As a

beast, though we will always have maximum pleasure and appeasement, we would have no aspirations. This choice of staying human may ultimately be attributed to pride and love of power which offers even more pleasure than a pig may ever experience-a pleasure of a superior quality. Basically, Mills opposes the swine objection because he argues that we as humans value a higher quality of pleasure over a higher quantity of pleasure, under the premise that pleasure is the most important factor in determining what is moral. In response to the second portion of prompt (b), I believe Mills has not convinced me that his position is the correct one. As stated earlier, in the defense of utilitarianism, the Epicureans compared their attackers as swine due to the fact that pleasure wasnt the highest end in lifelogically, though rather taken to an extreme, the following would also be true: the same quality of life would suffice for humans as well as the beasts, which is indeed absurd. In response to this point, Mills is discarding a VERY broad range of emotion and value, such as honor, promise, and sacrifice. These are all mental states which, while may not bring about pleasure of any sort, yet are commonly regarded as moral premises. Mills cannot account for the man who sacrifices himself in order to save another, especially a man in power. For example, if a benevolent leader of a country was given the choice of dying and setting a little girl free or letting the little girl get killed while he saves himself, the moral option, according to Mill, would be to let the little girl die because only her family would grieve. The entire country would grieve his loss if he sacrificed himself. Furthermore, he sacrificed his power, and indeed his life, possibly the two most necessary possessions to achieve pleasure. According to Mill, this is not the moral choice to take, yet in our society today, he would be hailed as a hero of virtue. Naturally, this leads to the idea that referring to his ability to sense pleasure only to the capacity of swine is utterly absurd.