The Student Room Group

A (quick) question on a (philosophical) concept encountered in an analysis of JS Mill

The passage itself reads:

"The traditional criticisms of the argument of On Liberty are easily summarized. Perhaps the commonest is that of mill's deriving a distributive principle, the Principle of Liberty, from the aggregative Principle of Utility, is an attempt at squaring the circle. Even if this criticism is finally valid, it is radically underdeveloped as it stands. For it neglects the most salient feature of indirect utilitarianism in all of its forms, including the Millian, that it embodies the paradoxical claim that utility will not be maximized by adopting the strategy of maximizing utility. Instead, it is asserted that utility will be best promoted if we adopt practical precepts which impose constraints on the policies we adopt in the pursuit of utility. The claim of On Liberty is that the distributive Principle of Liberty is precisely the utility-barring maxim whose adoption will , in fact, maximally promote aggregate utility. It is, in other words, a utility-maximizing constraint on the pursuit of Utility, which exploits the (alleged) fact that the sum of utility-maximizing acts is not a utility-maximizing sum."

What is the difference between an aggregate and distributive principle? Thanks.

Source: JS Mill, 'On Liberty and Other Essays', (Introduction) p.xvi, Oxford university Press: UK. ed. John Gray, 2008
Aggregate principle is based on TOTAL SUM of e.g. happiness (Greatest Happiness for the greatest number
Distributive principle focuses on the distribution of (in this case liberty) to the individual - in Mill's case he claims that maximising the individual's ability to pursue 'his own good in his own way' will promote individual happiness, and hence increase aggregate utility - this is the questionable relationship between the two premises, largely due to the vague nature of what sorts of 'harm' justify interference under the liberty principle

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending