And with this, not all humans are free. If we want to know what is ultimately desirable for humans, we have to acquire observational knowledge about what humans ultimately strive for. A virtuous person has the disposition to follow moral rules.Oedipus is destined to kill his father and marry his mother and his desperate attempts to avoid his foretold fate are in vain. From an act utilitarian view regarding moral obligation, this is implausible. If one follows this interpretation, then world Y is better than world X because in this world absolute and relative measurements suggest that more humans have fulfilled lives. And it is unjust to punish someone for something, if he could not do anything to hinder its occurrence CW 9, Mill planned from the beginning a separate book publication, which came to light in If in a given situation moral rules secondary principles conflict, then and only then can the second step invoke the formula of utility CW 10, as a first principle. Utilitarians are, for him, consequentialists who believe that pleasure is the only intrinsic value. The answer to this question depends on whether we focus on the minimizing the number of bad lives or on maximizing the number of good lives, and whether we measure this absolutely or relatively to the total population. The principle of utility governs not only morality, but also prudence and taste CW 8, We have to differentiate between the following two statements: On the one hand, that actions occur necessarily; on the other hand, that they are predetermined and agents have no influence on them. Miller, Dale E. This is a problem for Rule Utilitarians because we could be wrong about what causes pleasure in general as well. Why should one be morally obliged to follow a rule of which one positively knows that its observance in a particular case will not promote general utility? Morality stands out clearly in this case because George did not have the best option; he only had a better one and that is what he went for. You need to point out inconsistencies within his system.
In the light of these passages, it is not surprising that the question whether Mill is an act- or a rule-utilitarian has been intensely debated. But does this satisfy us as a defence of punishment for the breaking of norms?
He is not saying that desirable objects are by definition objects which people desire; he writes instead that what people desire is the only evidence for what is desirable.
Along indirect act utilitarian lines, one could maintain that we would be cognitively overwhelmed by the task of calculating the consequences of any action. His argument against intuitionistic approaches to moral philosophy has two parts.
Responsibility and Punishment Mill variously examines the thesis that punishment is only justified if the perpetrator could have acted differently.
Victorian Firebrand, London: Atlantic Books.