Discussion Project Applying Mill’s Utilitarianism

Last week we considered how a rather simple sort of (act) utilitarianism would apply to our cases. (Not that the analysis was simple!). Now consider how J. S. Mill’s more complex version of (rule) utilitarianism would apply to your case. That is:

1) Is there some way to bring the distinction between higher and lower pleasures into a consideration of your case?

2) Mill says that, most of the time, we can decide what to do, not by directly applying the principle of utility, but instead by applying ‘secondary principles’ – which seem to be the familiar rules of common-sense morality. Would some such rules apply in your case? Would they give a clear answer as to what to do?

3) Mill also says that sometimes more than one of those familiar principles applies, and we then have a difficulty, a moral dilemma. (That is, we have a situation where one moral rule tells you to do A and another rule tells you to do B, where A and B are incompatible actions.) In such cases, he suggests, the principle of utility can serve as a ‘court of appeal’ – a way of settling the dispute between secondary principles. Would this be helpful in your case? How should the conflict be resolved (if there is one)?

4) Does Mill’s version of utilitarianism seem to be helpful in thinking about your case? Why or why not?