3 ms·
> In this family, we want to maximize the overall quantity AND the quality of individual happiness (like John Stuart Mill). I can't see that sentience and the
by hirundo 7y ago
> In this family, we want to maximize the overall quantity AND the quality of individual happiness (like John Stuart Mill).
I can't see that sentience and the quality of individual happiness are necessarily related. It may be that some other species is capable of sustaining a higher quality of happiness. If, for example, that species turns out to be a kind of duck, are John Stuart Mill utilitarians obligated to maximize the quantity of very happy ducks over happy humans?
- chrstphrhrt 7y agoHmmm, so is the prose intending a logical AND? If so it would seem that we couldn't discount the prior quantity of non-duck happiness and would somehow need to hold the two types of happiness in balance. I'm not familiar with Mill or Bentham. What would a "preponderance" of the evidence on both sides look like if there were to be a balance, I wonder? Can we even compare quantity and quality in any way?