Truman And Elizabeth Anscombe's Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill

3-21-17

In chapters two and three of Mill’s Utilitarianism writings he chose to discuss Utilitarianism’s meaning and principles of Utility. As for the definitions of utilitarianism, Mill described it as, “The Greatest Happiness Principle” (Mill 10). Furthermore, utilitarianism seeks to promote the most happiness for the greater good (Mill 10). In accordance to that, actions are considered good actions if they promote happiness (Mill 10). As Mill describes the definition of Utilitarianism, he also discusses the definition of happiness. Mill describes happiness as, “Intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Mill 10). In other words, Mill believes that if someone is performing an action

Their debate was on whether or not the atomic bomb should have been dropped in Japan. Truman said that it was acceptable to drop the bomb on Japan while Anscombe thought otherwise (CITE 119). Anscombe thought this was wrong because she believed that there are set moral rules in this world. Her example was that something terrible such as “Boiling a baby” should not be considered nor should it be done (CITE 119). She felt this way about the atomic bomb as well, she believed that although Truman thought it would help save more lives in the future, the fact that it was dropped and it took the lives on many human beings was completely wrong and immoral. Anscombe’s thoughts on a universal set of rules followed that of Immanuel Kant’s set of beliefs. Moreover, Kant believed that there are “absolute laws” such as that one should not lie (CITE 123). Kant felt this way because he thought that lying would cause people to become doubtful of one another and begin not to trust one another (CITE 123). A major objection to Kant’s idea was the question of, “Suppose it was necessary to lie to save someone’s life? Should we do it?” (CITE 123). Kant would say that we should not lie, as lying to save someone’s life would still break his universal rule that people shouldn’t lie (CITE 123). Anscombe combats this with an idea that she considers to be less defeating. She says that parts of

Kant would describe a good will as being good if there is ‘good’ in itself (Kant 8). Furthermore, Kant states that it is not good just because of its end result or because of what it wants to result in (Kant 8). To me, this makes sense. For example, if a person is to help someone walk across the street without asking for anything in return, it could be considered a good will. I believe this because there is ‘good’ in the act, as someone is helping another person without asking for anything in return. Kant also defined his definition of the idea of duty in which he states, “Duty is the necessity of an action from respect for law” (Kant 13). In other words, in order to follow a person’s duty, they must act in accordance to the laws given to them. For example, if someone wants to do good in the world, they should not commit the crime of murder as it would not be acting in accordance to the law and therefore would not be considered a ‘good’ action. Kant specifically believes that this general idea of the law is only within people who are considered to be rational (Kant 14). He says this because he believes that only rational being have respect towards the law and are therefore the only ones who can understand it and have a general idea within them (Kant 14). I can see where this makes sense in some ways, but I can find an objection with it as well. My objection is the fact that I believe that