Comments on: McCloskey on Happiness and Flourishing http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/09/03/mccloskey-on-happiness-and-flourishing/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: W. Kang http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/09/03/mccloskey-on-happiness-and-flourishing/#comment-16826 W. Kang Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:26:35 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1587#comment-16826 VALID HAPPINESS (including love, sense of beauty, symbiosis (good conscience, upholding justice, moral couraging, helping and teaching others as well as vice versa…) bravery, etc.) must be the feeling of things being a step better for our propagation.<br>Or, human being can not survive.<br><br>Right?<br><br><a href="http://validhappiness.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://validhappiness.blogspot.com</a><br><a href="http://blog.sina.com.cn/happywellness" rel="nofollow">http://blog.sina.com.cn/happywellness</a> (most in Chinese) VALID HAPPINESS (including love, sense of beauty, symbiosis (good conscience, upholding justice, moral couraging, helping and teaching others as well as vice versa…) bravery, etc.) must be the feeling of things being a step better for our propagation.
Or, human being can not survive.

Right?

http://validhappiness.blogspot.com
http://blog.sina.com.cn/happywellness (most in Chinese)

]]> By: jaltcoh.blogspot.com http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/09/03/mccloskey-on-happiness-and-flourishing/#comment-16825 jaltcoh.blogspot.com Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:14:02 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1587#comment-16825 Frankly, I don't think you or McCloskey know what you're talking about when it comes to "the pot-of-pleasure definition favored by modern utilitarians." <br><br>She's depicting "modern utilitarians" as all being like Jeremy Bentham. But John Stuart Mill decimated Bentham's rigid view of utility back in the 19th century, in favor of a multi-dimensional view along the lines that McCloskey presumably favors. Hence Mill's famous quip that some utilitarians believe it's better to be a pig satisfied than Socrates dissatisfied. It's widely accepted among modern ethicists that Mill got this right, or at least more right than Bentham. <br><br>I welcome the discussion from you and McCloskey on this point, and I think it's important enough that it's well-worth pointing out again and again -- but please realize that other people have been thinking the same thing for a long time. Frankly, I don't think you or McCloskey know what you're talking about when it comes to “the pot-of-pleasure definition favored by modern utilitarians.”

She's depicting “modern utilitarians” as all being like Jeremy Bentham. But John Stuart Mill decimated Bentham's rigid view of utility back in the 19th century, in favor of a multi-dimensional view along the lines that McCloskey presumably favors. Hence Mill's famous quip that some utilitarians believe it's better to be a pig satisfied than Socrates dissatisfied. It's widely accepted among modern ethicists that Mill got this right, or at least more right than Bentham.

I welcome the discussion from you and McCloskey on this point, and I think it's important enough that it's well-worth pointing out again and again — but please realize that other people have been thinking the same thing for a long time.

]]>