Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Cohen-Almagor, Raphael 2012. Between Autonomy and State Regulation: J.S. Mill's Elastic Paternalism. Philosophy, Vol. 87, Issue. 04, p. 557.


    HAUSKELLER, MICHAEL 2011. No Philosophy for Swine: John Stuart Mill on the Quality of Pleasures. Utilitas, Vol. 23, Issue. 04, p. 428.


    Bronaugh, Richard 1974. The Quality in Pleasures. Philosophy, Vol. 49, Issue. 189, p. 320.


    ×

A Defence of Mill's Qualitative Hedonism

  • Rex Martin (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100040870
  • Published online: 01 February 2009
Abstract

In his well known proposition that pleasures differ qualitatively, Mill seems to be arguing three principal points. (1) ‘Mental’ pleasures as a kind are intrinsically ‘more desirable and more valuable’ than ‘bodily pleasures’ (p. 12). (2) This estimation of pleasure, Mill says, is such as to rule out the claim that it ‘should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.’ Indeed, he continued, the ‘superiority in quality’ might be ‘so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account’ (p. 12). (3) The ‘test of quality and the rule for measuring it against quantity,’ Mill says, is ‘the preference’ of experienced judges (p. 16). ‘[T]he judgment of those who are qualified by knowledge of both, or, if they differ, that of the majority among them, must be admitted as final’ (p. 15).

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0031-8191
  • EISSN: 1469-817X
  • URL: /core/journals/philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×