The prelims comprise: Introduction The Physician and the Provider Organization The Physician and the Payer Organization Dealing with Systems Conclusion Notes References.

The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill, published in two volumes in 1963, were well received by critics and scholars alike. The publication of these four volumes of later letters completes this edition of Mill's personal correspondence. These volumes contain over 1,800 letters, most never before published, and some sixty earlier letters that have come to light since the publication of the first two volumes of correspondence. The letters have been assembled from widely dispersed collections in the libraries of fifty-eight (...) institutions and of some thirty private collections in Britain and in other countries of the Commonwealth, Europe, and North America. In addition, many personal letters of which no originals sirvived have been located in contemporary periodicals or biographies of Mill's correspondence. (shrink)

In this paper, two different axiologies of pleasure are attributed to Hutcheson and Mill. Hutcheson endorsed a hedonist axiology, where quality of pleasure works as a still quantitative factor, able to counterbalance other quantitative features of pleasurable mental states - such as intensity and duration. By contrast, in Mill's view of value, the quality of pleasures is the only value-making feature, silencing any contribution from other quantitative elements. Therefore, the presence of certain qualitative characteristics - namely, the connection of certain (...) pleasures with human active faculties - becomes a necessary and sufficient condition of value. Due to this unique role of quality, Mill's axiology opens the way to non-pleasurable experiences being valuable - for non-pleasurable exercises of the human active faculties meet the condition to be valuable states. Thus, Mill's theory of value is declared non-hedonistic - against the recent claims to the contrary put forth by W. Donner. (shrink)

Mill's discussion of ‘the internal sanction’ in chapter III of Utilitarianism does not do justice to his understanding of internal sanctions; it omits some important points and obscures others. I offer an account of this portion of his moral psychology of motivation which brings out its subtleties and complexities. I show that he recognizes the importance of internal sanctions as sources of motives to develop and perfect our characters, as well as of motives to do our duty, and I examine (...) in some detail the various ways in which these sanctions give rise to motivating desires and aversions. (shrink)

Trata-se de relacionar as duas posições concorrentes que pautaram o debate sobre representação e democracia na filosofia moderna. Em um primeiro momento, reconstruiremos a crítica à representação, feita por Jean-Jacques Rousseau, no Contrato social (1762). A incompatibilidade entre democracia e representação postulada neste livro apoia-se nos seguintes pressupostos: 1) a soberania consiste unicamente na vontade; 2) a representação é uma forma de delegação. Em um segundo momento, investigaremos a defesa da democracia representativa, feita por John Stuart Mill, em Considerações sobre (...) o governo representativo (1861) e destacaremos como Mill busca rebater a crítica à representação feita por Rousseau. Para que pudesse elaborar o conceito de representação democrática, Mill precisou problematizar os dois pressupostos do Contrato social. Como resultado deste esforço, Mill postulou as seguintes teses: 1) a soberania engloba não só a vontade, mas também o juízo; 2) a representação não precisa necessariamente redundar na delegação do poder político do representado para o representante, donde a possibilidade de uma democracia representativa e participativa. (shrink)

Tradução do artigo "Mill between Aristotle and Bentham".

Nosso objetivo neste trabalho é, em primeiro lugar, apresentar o modelo de liberalismo proposto por John Stuart Mill como relevante para o construtivismo da teoria política de John Rawls. Para tal, vamos mostrar que o contratualista americano em alguma medida subscreve o liberalismo do utilitarista inglês. Vamos aproximar ambos os autores no tocante ao método intuicionista e verificar se ainda há alguma vantagem no consequencialismo de Mill. Para Rawls, um procedimento intuicionista é ligado a um conjunto de princípios que não (...) pode ser reduzido. Mill se encaixa na definição, portanto, na medida em que advoga um tipo de hedonismo, característica que o americano descarta, por poder ser listada como teoria moral abrangente. Mesmo assim, precisamos verificar até que medida é possível considerar o utilitarismo de Mill como tendo influenciado o liberalismo de Rawls. Assim, levaremos em conta que ele autorizou, pelo menos parcialmente, um método intuicionista e mostraremos que isso se deu por influência da filosofia política de Mill. Fica assim admitido que o apelo à intuição está na base da teoria da justiça, mas tudo somado pode ficar perfeitamente claro onde reside o equilíbrio lógico proposto por Rawls. Mesmo com o desacordo final, é possível notar a influência do projeto liberal do londrino em torno da teoria política que resultou na _Teoria da Justiça_. Restará ainda tentar saber se realmente é possível se afastar de um consequencialismo e se há alguma vantagem teórica em se manter filiado a uma teoria política e ética como a de Mill do ponto de vista jurídico institucional. Isso porque o consequencialismo com um viés estritamente constitucional, como aquele sugerido por Rawls, não parece ser capaz de solucionar um problema jurídico externo ao hermético sistema teórico proposto nas teorias da justiça contemporâneas. (shrink)

O fio condutor dos argumentos apresentados por J. S. Mill em On Liberty é de que o aperfeiçoamento da humanidade tem como fonte infalível e permanente o espírito da liberdade. Nosso objetivo é mostrar que o conceito de liberdade milliana se equilibra entre a promoção do cultivo da individualidade, na sua mais ampla pluralidade, e o desenvolvimento moral da sociedade.

Despite the fact that ethics consultations are an accepted practice in most healthcare organizations, many clinical ethicists continue to feel marginalized by their institutions. They are often not paid for their time, their programs often have no budget, and institutional leaders are frequently unaware of their activities. One consequence has been their search for concrete ways to evaluate their work in order to prove the importance of their activities to their institutions through demonstrating their efficiency and effectiveness.

Mill was not only a philosopher but also a public intellectual, and it is difficult to make compatible an active role in politics with the search of personal and intellectual integrity. This article deals with that problem and in this way with Mill’s approach to the relation between ethics and politics. Mill devised a set of rules to make morally acceptable compromise decisions in politics. I study how this compromise rules are coherent with his general outlook on the science and (...) practice of politics. My point is that Mill defended a kind of political prudence, and that he admitted ultimate conflict of values without abandoning the Principle of Utility at a more general level. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: Introduction Mill as an Act‐Utilitarian Mill as a Rule‐Utilitarian Moral Rules, Justice, and Supererogation Mill's Theory of the Right and “The Art of Life”.

This paper has the intention to analyze the possible mill’s liberalism on utilitarian basis, enhancing the tension focus of such an interpretation, as well as indicating its controversial profile along the rights and the justice.

In the fourteenth paragraph of the fifth chapter of Utilitarianism, J. S. Mill writes that ‘We do not call anything wrong, unless we mean to imply that a person ought to be punished in some way or other for doing it; if not by law, by the opinion of his fellow-creatures; if not by opinion, by the reproaches of his own conscience.’ I criticize the attempts of three commentators who have recently presented act-utilitarian readings of Mill – Roger Crisp, David (...) Brink, and Piers Norris Turner – to accommodate this passage. (shrink)

This essay argues that John Stuart Mill is not the radical anti-censorship thinker he is sometimes supposed to be. By describing a contemporary case ofa journalist who denied the holocaust, I show that there is evidence in Mill that supports the position that the journalist should have been censored.

This paper evaluates Mill’s arguments favoring a society with an economy dominated by “a principle of individual property” over alternatives dominated by the common ownership of the conditions of life and wealth. Mill’s strategy for addressing the problem of property consists in conducting a comparison of competing systems of ownership (capitalism, socialism or communism) on the criterion of which best distributes wealth to the individual. Mill applies this criterion in the evaluation of these systems in light of three considerations: (1) (...) their feasibility in a highly developed society, (2) their efficiency and likelihood of continuing improvement in comparison to competing systems, and (3) their consistency with and conduciveness to individual liberty. This paper investigates Mill’s arguments regarding the application of these and related considerations to the arguments of socialist and communist theorists with whose views he was familiar and, in varying degrees, sympathetic. As argued here, the arguments Mill employs are not, on his own terms and especially with respect to liberty, adequate to justify his general contention that given the inadequate moral and intellectual development of citizens, it is better to gamble on a private property economy than a socialist alternative. (shrink)

This essay argues that John Stuart Mill is not the radical anti-censorship thinker he is sometimes supposed to be. By describing a contemporary case ofa journalist who denied the holocaust, I show that there is evidence in Mill that supports the position that the journalist should have been censored.

Heyes’ book is an important contribution that rightly integrates cognitive development and cultural evolution. However, understanding the cultural evolution of cognitive gadgets requires a deeper appreciation of complexity, feedback, and self-organization than her book exhibits.

Critics have charged that John Stuart Mill''s discussion as of paternalism in On Liberty is internally inconsistent, noting, for example, the numerous instances in which Mill explicitly endorses examples of paternalistic coercion. Similarly, commentators have noted an apparent contradiction between Mill''s political liberalism – according to which the state should be neutral among competing conceptions of the good – and Mill''s condemnation of non-autonomous ways of life, such as that of a servile wife. More generally, critics have argued that while (...) Mill professes an allegiance to utilitarianism, he actually abandons it in favor of a view that values personal autonomy as the greatest intrinsic good. This paper presents an interpretation of Mill that provides a viable and consistent treatment of paternalism, thereby refuting each of the aforementioned critiques. Mill''s views, it argues, are consistently utilitarian. Moreover, the interpretation accounts for all of Mill''s departures from his otherwise blanket prohibition of paternalistic legislation. In particular, it explains his most notorious example, the condemnation of voluntary contracts for slavery. The interpretation emphasizes Mill''s conceptual linkage between autonomy and utility, noting his implicit use of at least three different senses of the notion of autonomy. (shrink)

This dissertation argues for a particular interpretation of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, namely that Mill is best read as a sanction utilitarian. In general, scholars commonly interpret Mill as some type of act or rule utilitarian. In making their case for these interpretations, it is also common for scholars to use large portions of Mill’s Utilitarianism as the chief source of insight into his moral theory. By contrast, I argue that Utilitarianism is best read as an ecumenical text where Mill (...) explains and defends the general tenets of utilitarianism rather than setting out his own preferred theory. The exception to this ecumenical approach to the text comes in the fifth chapter on justice which, I argue on textual and historical grounds, outlines the central features of Mill’s utilitarianism. -/- With this understanding of Utilitarianism in place, many of the passages commonly cited in favor of the previous interpretations are rendered less plausible, and interpretations emphasizing Mill’s other writings are strengthened. Using this methodology, I critique four of the most prominent act or rule utilitarian interpretations of Mill’s moral theory. I then provide an interpretation of Mill’s theory of moral obligation and utilitarianism. On Mill’s account of moral obligation (which purportedly holds for moral theories generally, not just utilitarianism) there is a tight relation between an action being wrong and it being subject to punishment by an agent’s conscience. The utilitarian aspect of Mill’s theory concerns the role of rules in an agent’s conscience. According to Mill’s sanction utilitarian view, the actions that are punished are those actions that violate the moral rules which, if widely internalized across society, would promote general utility. On this account, an action is wrong when an agent violates a justified moral rule and is properly punished, at least by one’s conscience. An action is right when conditions are such that if the action were not performed, then the action would be properly punished by at least the agent’s conscience. I apply this interpretation to other notable components of Mill’s approach such as his account of practical action (the Art of Life) and his theory of liberty. (shrink)