I had praised Mill's On Liberty, despite its utilitarian limitations, as a lighthouse to guide our thinking about freedom of speech and of living generally as against those who think that they are confident enough about what makes us happier that they feel that they can call the cops on those who express contrary views. Rakesh expresses some doubts about utilitarianianism excerted below. I share these doubts, but will remark only here that Mill was aware of them. It['s a pretty good question what's left of utilitarianism when one concedes taht there are incommensurable goods, as Mill insists in the open chapters of Utilitarianism.
--jks
<< would also have to re-read the argument in ON Liberty to determine its
philosophic consistency--that is, whether the spirited and inspiring
defense of individuality is indeed based on or can be based on or
ultimately circumscribed by utilitarianism in any of its many variants.
From another angle, reading Meikle's Aristotle's Economic Thought did
illuminate why "utilitarianism unsuprisingly fits the requirements of
economics...because it had been designed for this supported and subordinate
role in the first place...There is only one end, pleasure or utility, and
all actions are means to it. They are therefore to be judged only in their
efficacy in promoting that end, so that only the consequences of actions
are significant, not the actions themselves." p. 107
>>