Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Mill's own proof treats utility as the sole object of desire prior to any interpersonal accounting, showing utility is defined independently of impartiality.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mill's proof doesn't distinguish between psychological desires and normative principles; personal utility being desired doesn't prove it's the sole object of moral desire.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill explicitly states impartiality emerges from education and social sentiment, suggesting utility's meaning transforms through moral development, not independence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill's utilitarian principle demands equal consideration of interests; if utility's definition excluded this, his ethics would be internally incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill's proof in Chapter 4 establishes that happiness is desired for itself, prior to introducing the greatest happiness principle for society.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Individual utility and impartial utility are conceptually distinct; personal desire for happiness doesn't logically entail equal concern for all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill argues people desire their own happiness first, then extends this via habituation—suggesting impartiality is added, not foundational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.