1. Why would someone object that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine? (21-23)
It would all depend on ones religious views. I do not believe that utilitarianism is a godless
doctrine, because what I believe is that the deity I serve seeks happiness for all his children and
inhabitants created by his touch. The idea of God, with Christianity as least, is to live an eternal
life through Christ in heaven, without ever feeling an ounce of sadness, or pain again. And to
only feel happiness. Utilitarianism supports and revolves around the ultimate happiness of
humanity. Therefore, it can only support God with the utmost respect, and in fact if your
religious views adhere to this standard, God is included solely in this theory.
2. How does Mill respond to the objection that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine? (21-
23)
Mills responds to this objection by saying that if God desires his creations to be happy,
how can utilitarianism be Godless? Knowing that Utilitarianism is based off of happiness
and pleasure being the foundation of moral standard, utilitarianism should be viewed as a
Godly doctrine in the utmost manner. He visits the notion that non-utilitarianist believe
that the Christian revolution left it up to mankind to decide what is right and pursue those
actions, rather then tell them outright. That's why they needed a moral doctrine(the bible
or commandments) to guide them. He states that this opinion, whether right or not,
involves religion and can be used under utilitarianism to support determining what
actions are good(useful) and therefore pleasureable. Therefore, making utilitarianism
Godly.
3. Explain the objection that utilitarianism is a doctrine of expediency. What is Mill’s
response? (22-23)
Mill says, “Utility is often summarily stigmatized as an immoral doctrine by giving it the
name of ‘expediency’, and taking advantage of the popular use of that term to contrast it
with principle.” (Mill, Pg.22) Mill also says later on, “We feel that the violation, for a
present advantage, of a rule of such transcendent expediency is not expedient, and that he
who, for the sake of convenience to himself or to some other individual, does what
depends on him to deprive mankind of the good, and inflict upon them the evil, involved
in the greater or less reliance which they can place in each others word, acts the part of
one of their worst of their worst enemies.” (Mill’s, Pg.22) Utilitarianism is the doctrine
that actions are right if they are useful for the benefit of a majority and expediency is the
quality of being convenient and practical despite possibly being improper or immoral. I
personally don’t believe either one of these should be followed, but I agree that I’d object
that utilitarianism is a doctrine of expediency as well, because utilitarianism is what is
considered an ‘ethical right’ decision and expediency is a selfish, who cares if it’s right or
wrong decision. Utilitarianism focuses more on everyone and expediency seems like it
focuses more on self.
4. Why would someone object that utilitarianism is flawed because there is not time to
calculate consequences? (23-26)
, One of the reasons that is it only deals with the pleasure you find in the activity or time
frame as long as no pain is associated. It does not take into account what is right or wrong
at the time only what is pleasurable. There is no time to take into account how one
persons pleasure affects any of the others it only thing that counts.
Another large objection of how it is flawed is because it also not morally measured, just
because it brings someone pleasure does not mean that it is morally right or any part is
good for society.
5. What is Mill’s response to the objection that there is no time to calculate
consequences before acting? (23-26)
Mill's response to the objection that there is no time to calculate consequences before
acting is that there indeed has been plenty of time. Mankind has been learning by
experience for all of time. Basic rules of morality such as obey the law, don't steal or
cheat, and keep your promises are time tested beliefs that result in positive consequences
and promote happiness. Because these "subordinate rules" have been learned and
practiced throughout generations, people have had all of there lives to prepare for
decisions, even last minute decisions.
6. Suppose Mill’s theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you sell all of your non-
necessary possessions and give the money to charity? Carefully explain your
answer.
Absolutely not! According to Mill himself,
“Though it is only in a very imperfect state of the world’s arrangements that
anyone can best serve the happiness of others by the absolute sacrifice of his
own…” (Mill 16). “A sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the
sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted”. (Mill 17)
The key word in all this is sum. In order to have a sum you must have the
addition of two or more things. In this case, (1) being the happiness of others
(charity) plus (2) the happiness of the individual liquidating his assets. By
sacrificing the things (non-necessary possessions) that brought you happiness
by owning or purchasing them, this would subtract from the overall happiness
equation and thus be extremely noble but to the contrary of utilitarianism by
definition. Mill goes on to say that, “The utilitarian does recognize the power in
sacrificing one’s greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit
that the sacrifice is itself good” (Mill 16-17).
7. Suppose Mill’s theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you cheat on the final exam?
Carefully explain your answer.
After reading Mill’s theory on utilitarianism, I would have to say that you still should not
cheat on the final exam. Yes, we know that utilitarianism is moral acts based on how a
person would feel and when cheating you will most likely receive an A because of
getting the right answers which would make you feel happy. Mill states on page 25 that
he recognizes that utilitarianism can give a person an excuse to do an act that might be
It would all depend on ones religious views. I do not believe that utilitarianism is a godless
doctrine, because what I believe is that the deity I serve seeks happiness for all his children and
inhabitants created by his touch. The idea of God, with Christianity as least, is to live an eternal
life through Christ in heaven, without ever feeling an ounce of sadness, or pain again. And to
only feel happiness. Utilitarianism supports and revolves around the ultimate happiness of
humanity. Therefore, it can only support God with the utmost respect, and in fact if your
religious views adhere to this standard, God is included solely in this theory.
2. How does Mill respond to the objection that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine? (21-
23)
Mills responds to this objection by saying that if God desires his creations to be happy,
how can utilitarianism be Godless? Knowing that Utilitarianism is based off of happiness
and pleasure being the foundation of moral standard, utilitarianism should be viewed as a
Godly doctrine in the utmost manner. He visits the notion that non-utilitarianist believe
that the Christian revolution left it up to mankind to decide what is right and pursue those
actions, rather then tell them outright. That's why they needed a moral doctrine(the bible
or commandments) to guide them. He states that this opinion, whether right or not,
involves religion and can be used under utilitarianism to support determining what
actions are good(useful) and therefore pleasureable. Therefore, making utilitarianism
Godly.
3. Explain the objection that utilitarianism is a doctrine of expediency. What is Mill’s
response? (22-23)
Mill says, “Utility is often summarily stigmatized as an immoral doctrine by giving it the
name of ‘expediency’, and taking advantage of the popular use of that term to contrast it
with principle.” (Mill, Pg.22) Mill also says later on, “We feel that the violation, for a
present advantage, of a rule of such transcendent expediency is not expedient, and that he
who, for the sake of convenience to himself or to some other individual, does what
depends on him to deprive mankind of the good, and inflict upon them the evil, involved
in the greater or less reliance which they can place in each others word, acts the part of
one of their worst of their worst enemies.” (Mill’s, Pg.22) Utilitarianism is the doctrine
that actions are right if they are useful for the benefit of a majority and expediency is the
quality of being convenient and practical despite possibly being improper or immoral. I
personally don’t believe either one of these should be followed, but I agree that I’d object
that utilitarianism is a doctrine of expediency as well, because utilitarianism is what is
considered an ‘ethical right’ decision and expediency is a selfish, who cares if it’s right or
wrong decision. Utilitarianism focuses more on everyone and expediency seems like it
focuses more on self.
4. Why would someone object that utilitarianism is flawed because there is not time to
calculate consequences? (23-26)
, One of the reasons that is it only deals with the pleasure you find in the activity or time
frame as long as no pain is associated. It does not take into account what is right or wrong
at the time only what is pleasurable. There is no time to take into account how one
persons pleasure affects any of the others it only thing that counts.
Another large objection of how it is flawed is because it also not morally measured, just
because it brings someone pleasure does not mean that it is morally right or any part is
good for society.
5. What is Mill’s response to the objection that there is no time to calculate
consequences before acting? (23-26)
Mill's response to the objection that there is no time to calculate consequences before
acting is that there indeed has been plenty of time. Mankind has been learning by
experience for all of time. Basic rules of morality such as obey the law, don't steal or
cheat, and keep your promises are time tested beliefs that result in positive consequences
and promote happiness. Because these "subordinate rules" have been learned and
practiced throughout generations, people have had all of there lives to prepare for
decisions, even last minute decisions.
6. Suppose Mill’s theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you sell all of your non-
necessary possessions and give the money to charity? Carefully explain your
answer.
Absolutely not! According to Mill himself,
“Though it is only in a very imperfect state of the world’s arrangements that
anyone can best serve the happiness of others by the absolute sacrifice of his
own…” (Mill 16). “A sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the
sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted”. (Mill 17)
The key word in all this is sum. In order to have a sum you must have the
addition of two or more things. In this case, (1) being the happiness of others
(charity) plus (2) the happiness of the individual liquidating his assets. By
sacrificing the things (non-necessary possessions) that brought you happiness
by owning or purchasing them, this would subtract from the overall happiness
equation and thus be extremely noble but to the contrary of utilitarianism by
definition. Mill goes on to say that, “The utilitarian does recognize the power in
sacrificing one’s greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit
that the sacrifice is itself good” (Mill 16-17).
7. Suppose Mill’s theory of utilitarianism is true. Should you cheat on the final exam?
Carefully explain your answer.
After reading Mill’s theory on utilitarianism, I would have to say that you still should not
cheat on the final exam. Yes, we know that utilitarianism is moral acts based on how a
person would feel and when cheating you will most likely receive an A because of
getting the right answers which would make you feel happy. Mill states on page 25 that
he recognizes that utilitarianism can give a person an excuse to do an act that might be
