Greater good

I had to do a Moral Phil course in my second year at University and Mill's Utilitarianism was a big part of it. At the time (aged 19 - 20) I thought it sounded an attractive guide to living, though now I'm not so sure. If I had to write an essay on it now, I wouldn't be seeing things in black an white as I did 64 years ago. I would be looking at it in the light of subsequent history and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

jbf your teachers must have thought it was like wringing blood from a stone.

One of those problems that has kept me awake over the years. Especially in this age of Health and Safety and ridiculous rules that anyone with common sense would apply anyway.

I was told years ago that it's something most people believe in (hence communism) until it directly affects them, and something they love is taken away from them to be shared amongst others less fortunate. Then they change their minds pdq.

So I'm with suebailey1, each case should be judged individually. I know the UK isn't perfect, but I think we do strive to do just that.

The problem with philosophy is that it raises more questions than it answers; and requires proper definitions.

The first definition needed in the original question is "which people"? If we are just talking about those alive now then maybe we should eat, drink and be merry and consume as we are doing and let the planet go to hell. That would result in the greatest good for the greatest number now, but not for the trillions of people to come.

No.

I suppose I wouldn't support a blanket policy on anything really - each must be judged on its merits.

I remember having to consider this one in a philosophy course I was doing some years ago.

If you say yes to the question it justifies doing medical experiments on people awaiting execution, for instance.

So much of what we think is good moral behaviour is not logical.

I never did arrive at any kind of conclusion.