Quiz #18 has been marked, and the grades are now up on WebCT. Generally speaking, most people did quite well. It's amazing how many Millians we have in the class! The vast majority of answers were written in support of the utilitarian reading of value--that things are only desired because of their ability to bring pleasure or avoid pain.
The most common example that people chose was art, likely because it seems perfectly plausible to suggest that the reason one values art is for the pleasure that it brings them in appreciating its aesthetic qualities. This was fine for the quiz, but for your essay you will certainly have to take this interpretation a step further. For instance, if I were to look at the Mona Lisa and decide that it is the ugliest painting I have ever seen, am I to then conclude that it has no value? You might want to say yes... but then again, could it be argued that there is an intrinsic worth to "great" art? Is there something that is objectively (or even inter-subjectively) valuable that cannot be captured by pleasure and pain? My inclination is yes. Even if you think that pleasure and avoidance of pain are the only sources of value, in order for your essay to be successful, you will have to take some steps to show why people like me are wrong.
Justice is another great example and it is tied together in certain important ways with Prof. Sismondo's example of "absolute human rights". If you are planning on defending Mill, not only do you have to show how these things could be seen as bringing pleasure and avoiding pain, but you must also show that it is implausible to think of them as being desired because of any other type of value.
Good luck on your papers!
JSY
No comments:
Post a Comment