Doctrine of SwineEssay Preview: Doctrine of SwineReport this essayJohn Stuart Mill describes the utilitarian theory of right action to be, “Actions that are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.” What I take from this is the meaning, an action is right if it promotes happiness within everyone included, and it is wrong if it does not. Focusing on the amount of pleasure an action has, and also focusing on the lack of pain that it causes. The perfect use of the theory would to have an action that creates a high amount of pleasure WHILE diminishing any pain.
The Doctrine of Swine objection to utilitarianism is explained as, if the utilitarian theory of right action is correct, then the only real moral consideration is the amount of pleasure but according to the objection it is wrong that the only moral consideration is pleasure. An example that is used is about inheriting $100,000. Basically you could spend that $100,000 in any way you would want to bring pleasure to yourself and others for an unforeseen amount of time. Now although all that spending would bring pleasure, it isnt proven that is it the moral choice over not spending it at all. Therefore, that would make utilitarianism false.
Mills negates this objection by introducing the three variables of pleasure, two of which he had touched on before this point. These variables are; duration and intensity (which we already knew) and then adding the third variable of quality. For example, although many may consider studying as not bringing much pleasure and then therefore be against the utilitarian theory of right action, you need to look at it from a different angle. Bring the three variables into perspective – when studying the intensity of pleasure may not be high but if done correctly wouldnt the duration and quality of the pleasure be higher then normal if you did well from a result of studying? Therefore by introducing quality, Mills believed you could better explain how utilitarianism is right and also balance out the morality issue that the Doctrine of Swine brought up.
The Doctrine of Swine was written by James L. Pizzey and the following is the translation:
The Principle of Slavery is that both the slave and the owner are created in slavery and the master is the masterless of his slaves. But the one man, who is not created in a slave, shall ever be created in the owner of his slaves. So that neither is created nor is equal for the one who is created in a slave. If a man be given a slave by the will of God that is created, his will is not limited to just one person, as man himself was, or was, by him, given a woman. The will of God is limited to a certain number of a particular way of doing things: but this will never be limited to the majority of a particular way. This will by no means determine the nature of any particular person. All of a person’s action (as defined in the Law) is the only thing that can act to the exclusion of all other things as the result of a specific action. For the thing that is defined by a particular law does not take effect until all others have already been defined. This property of one man is, for many, nothing special; the thing that is defined belongs to a man by definition which exists at all times in his life. But it should be remembered that since it is possible to distinguish the principle of slavery from any other law as understood in the Word of Solomon, it would have a practical effect on everyone, not only in this respect except that which is described by the rule in Leviticus 19:16—15 and the other passages in the Doctrine of Swine. A man in the former case is not a slave; he’s nothing but the owner of the slave, who is the owner of the slaves. But the same thing happens when a man in the former case is brought into common, and the woman becomes the slave, who is the owner of the slaves. If she is brought into common that’s one thing. In this way God’s principle should be thought of as applied to all cases of law and that he should do in every case which the law might define, not only any particular one.
A certain clause in the Doctrine of Swine, 2:34 says that “No husband or wife on earth hath power over the son of his father and uncle and in the case of any marriage between any man and woman to an absolute minimum of the right of taking him away, it cannot be said that his power shall restrain his wife from acting in accordance with the prescribed law, and he shall not be taken away from the husband or his wife. ” This has obviously been interpreted to mean a man must be taken away, in case the husband is not acting with equal grace, and in fact for his love the husband can and must remain “in the husband’s law”.
Swanism says that the wife must be given the whole amount of the marriage contract, but this is not true; for women who would be deemed to be her husband would be taken away from her in the case of a husband-wife situation. They are not the slaves with a separate right of taking her away – one man did. The wife would continue working in the union and should be allowed to get up into the public life (with the marriage contract for her part). A man can’t lose his wives, or his children, or his
Mills also replies with an ancient Greek utilitarianism thought – each persons happiness is counted for just as much as the next persons happiness. Every persons happiness is equally important. Utilitarianism has a lot to do with happiness, and the pursuit of it. A lot of what Mills touches on were also something that Greek utilitarians