●
University home
●
Studying
●
Research
●
Business
●
Working here
●
Alumni and supporters
●
Our departments
●
Visiting us
●
About us
ORE
Open Research Exeter
Advanced Search
●
Home
●
●This Collection
●
Titles
●
Authors
●
Type
●
Recent submissions in ORE
●
Information
●
About ORE
●
Uploading to ORE
●
ORE Policies
●
Contact Us
●
●
Most Popular Items
●
Statistics by Country
●
Most Popular Authors
●
Home
●
●This Collection
●
Titles
●
Authors
●
Type
●
Recent submissions in ORE
●
Information
●
About ORE
●
Uploading to ORE
●
ORE Policies
●
Contact Us
●
●
Most Popular Items
●
Statistics by Country
●
Most Popular Authors
View Item
●
ORE Home
●
Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
●
Social and Political Sciences, Philosophy, and Anthropology
●
View Item
●
ORE Home
●
Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
●
Social and Political Sciences, Philosophy, and Anthropology
●View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
Hauskeller, Michael
Date: 7 November 2011
http://hdl.handle.net/10871/9381
No Philosophy for Swine: John Stuart Mill on the Quality of Pleasures (PDF, 483.1Kb)
Article
Journal
Utilitas
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Publisher DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820811000264
Abstract
I argue that Mill introduced the distinction between quality and quantity of pleasures in order to fend off the then common charge that Utilitarianism is “a philosophy for swine” and to accommodate the (still) widespread intuition that the life of a human is better, in the sense of being intrinsically more valuable, than the life of ...
Read more
I argue that Mill introduced the distinction between quality and quantity of pleasures in order to fend off the then common charge that Utilitarianism is “a philosophy for swine” and to accommodate the (still) widespread intuition that the life of a human is better, in the sense of being intrinsically more valuable, than the life of an animal. I argue that in this he fails because in order to do successfully he would have to show not only that the life of a human is preferable to that of an animal on hedonistic grounds, but also that it is in some sense nobler or more dignified to be a human, which he cannot do without tacitly presupposing non-hedonistic standards of what it means to lead a good life.
View full metadata
Social and Political Sciences, Philosophy, and Anthropology
Item views 0
Full item downloads 0
Show Statistical Information
Using our site
| Freedom of Information | Data Protection | Copyright & disclaimer |
Privacy & cookies
Copyright University of Exeter. All rights reserved.