Well, let me start by stating that I don't think we should. However, using Mill's reasoning, there are certain solid reasons we should. First, doing so provides a universal binary scale: you can appraise just two factors, pleasure and pain, rather than duty, religious imperative, etc. This provides a strong universal reference. Second, this unified scale would seem to escape the conflicting claims that so trouble people: what happens when two duties clash? When legal duty and religion clash? This scale dissolves those. Third, it allows for a kind of universal calculus of ethics—a hope of objectivity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What is the main function of the fool in "King Lear"? What is the secondly function?
The fool as a character is confusing, but part of this is the difference between the 1600s and today, as well as the difference in place. If...
-
"Anthem (1938) is a science fiction novelette of a future primitive society in which the word "I" is forbidden. Rand's po...
-
He is in the middle of the marketplace where he and his aunt are walking "through the flaring streets, jostled by drunken men and barga...
-
It is significant that Ray Bradbury's exposition juxtaposes the character of Montag with Clarisse because the marked contrast alerts the...
No comments:
Post a Comment