293

QuoteIt may not be superfluous to notice a few of the more common misapprehensions . . . even [especially?] those which are so obvious and gross that it might appear impossible for any person of candour and intelligence to fall into them: since persons, even of considerable mental endowments, often give themselves so little trouble to understand the bearings of any opinion against which they entertain a prejudice. . .

. . . men are in general so little conscious of this voluntary ignorance as a defect, that the vulgarest misunderstandings of ethical doctrines are continually met with in the deliberate writings of persons of the greatest pretensions both to high principle and to philosophy.

killer.

292

QuoteUtilitarians are quite aware that there are other desirable possessions and qualities besides virtue, and are perfectly willing to allow of them their full worth. . . .

they are. . . of opinion, that in the long run the best proof of a good character is good actions; and resolutely refuse to consider any mental disposition as good, of which the predominant tendency is to produce bad conduct. This makes them unpopular with many people. . .

Utilitarianism judges actions, outcomes. Mill talks about this from the perspective of and any all moral structures... I
suppose that in my mind the argument being made is that utilitarianism is more measurable, less concerned with what goes on in people's heads. It judges outcomes. I appreciate this practical take; it may be on an individual level stressful, but it's not meant to be applied to every single action (and he says this explicitly -- "ninety nine out of a hundred" actions will not & ought not be judged on a moral basis), but as a compass, it is the only one that makes sense.

What does good is good.

This is not the entire foundation upon which utilitarianism is constructed... but it is a piece of the structure, the ground beneath, the Earth itself. What does good is good. Then what does it mean for something to do good? Utilitarianism seeks to answer this question.

Switching over to Utilitarianism and Other Essays (mentioned here for page number reference clarity)

9

Quote. . . tranquility and excitement. Many people find that when they have much tranquility they can be content with very little pleasure; and many find that when they have much excitement they can put up with a considerable quantity of pain. It is certainly possible that a man--and even the mass of mankind--should have both tranquility and excitement.

There is something so incredibly hopeful, about this. I can feel myself floating.

7

QuoteIn most people a capacity for the nobler feelings is a very tender plant that is easily killed. . .

7

Quote. . . the being whose capacities for enjoyment are low has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied. . .
. . . a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness he can look for, given how the world is, is imperfect. . . .
. . . he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are bearable; and they won't make him envy the person who isn't conscious of the imperfections . . .
. . . the fool or the pig . . know only their own side of the question. The [highly endowed being] knows both sides.

Mill's argument gives me some hope... much needed. There is some other writing on previous pages regarding this point, but I think this catches the necessary component. If every being capable of knowing both pleasures, with experience of both, chooses one over the other, then we can understand it as qualitatively higher in a truly meaningful way. This is what is meant, by maximizing happiness, well laid out.

this "play" is the conspicuous consumption of free time.

it is the proof and yet also its contradiction.

to "play" in this sense is not to be free or to pursue freedom, but to display freedom, to oneself and to others.

play is the aesthetic of freedom.