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
    Mill's argument, though poorly framed, retains substantia... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Mill's argument, though poorly framed, retains substantial force when understood on its own terms

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The analogy between 'desired'/'desirable' and 'heard'/'audible' is linguistically flawed
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Desirability' means worthy of being desired, not merely capable of being desired
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill's framing is admittedly unfortunate
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moore's 'open question argument' shows that 'desired' and 'good' remain conceptually distinct regardless of how we reframe Mill's inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No charitable reconstruction of Mill's proof escapes the naturalistic fallacy: empirical facts about desire cannot entail normative conclusions about desirability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the argument's 'basic thrust' requires abandoning its stated premises, the resulting argument is no longer Mill's argument but a different one entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sidgwick demonstrated in Methods of Ethics that Mill's proof conflates the claim that each person desires their own happiness with the distinct claim that general happiness is desirable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This fallacy of composition is structural, not merely linguistic, and survives any charitable reframing of the 'desired/desirable' ambiguity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    ConsequentialismNo other argument is better

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language3 linked

    Related

    'Desirability' means worthy of being desired, not merely capable of being desire...If the argument's 'basic thrust' requires abandoning its stated premises, the re...Mill's framing is admittedly unfortunateMoore's 'open question argument' shows that 'desired' and 'good' remain conceptu...
    +5 moreShow less
    No charitable reconstruction of Mill's proof escapes the naturalistic fallacy: e...Sidgwick demonstrated in Methods of Ethics that Mill's proof conflates the claim...The analogy between 'desired'/'desirable' and 'heard'/'audible' is linguisticall...The basic thrust of the argument is nevertheless strong if understood in terms o...This fallacy of composition is structural, not merely linguistic, and survives a...

    Similar

    The objection that Norton's notion of argument is too vague is not the...78%The basic thrust of the argument is nevertheless strong if understood ...77%Auxiliary arguments, even if less philosophically compelling than prim...74%Mill's argument for impartiality relies on a contentious premise73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill
    View source passageHide passage
    G.E. Moore famously attacks this argument, suggesting that “the fallacy in this step is so obvious, that is quite wonderful how Mill failed to see it” (Moore 1993: 118). ‘Desired’ does not bear the same relation to ‘desirable’ as ‘heard’ does to ‘audible’—for desirability is the property of being deserving or worthy of being desired, whereas audibility is property of being capable of being heard. Mill’s choice of framing the argument in this way is, admittedly, unfortunate, but the basic thrust
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit