Notes

MORALS:
in an argument of morals Kant vs Util (what Mill says)-

(similar to the moral train level-pull situation seen in philosophy) >> if you have 1 man told to kill 3 men to save 1000 (by Germans)
utilitarian principle looks overwhelming when it comes to the moral situation (shoot the 3 so that the 1000 people in the pen will be alive)
man chooses to shoot the three to save the majority (Util. idea)
>> however the Germans tricked him to make him have to CLUB with the unloaded rifle the three... the man in the middle says "freedom" the man can't club the individual men (Kantianism) and the germans kill all 1004 men because the man saw the one mans individual self and could not morally end his life
In this situation the mans internal morals (aligning with Kant less Mills) more lives are lost at the expense of individuals being more personally important to individuals than seeing it in the Utilitarian view that the greater is worth more
>> If you go with the pure definition the "happiness" of that situation would obviously be if he had went through with rubbing the three and the greater of the people would be saved... happier ending for more people etc...

DEFINITIONS:
Kantainism VS utilitarisim
Kant- every being has inherent worth that rational beings have dignity and should be respected
Util- For utilitarianism, you may use whatever means (act on whatever motives) are necessary to achieve an end that increases happiness. It doesn’t matter why you did the action, only that the end result is an increase in happiness.

this theory and stories prove most definitely that morality is complex
in real situations kanteism morality vs utilitairism morality are a bit more intertwined than we can be taught
These are more abstractions of real life than just the "rules"

they may not work in real life as easily as Mill and Kant say they can

FREEDOM-
Mills concept of freedom- "on Liberty"
Tries to answer following question: where are the grounds for the governments interference with our liberty...
When can the state interfere with our power of freedom/liberty?

Harm principle-
only legitimate ground for social coercion is to prevent harm to others.

Harm- genuine harm NOT offense
the state or even SOCIETY can not interfere with someone offending people and if it does it is not a free society

Example: "if it bothers you that someone is burning a flag as long as they don't throw it onto you and burn you, there can be no interference"
society offense is the loss of liberty once someone arrests someone because they offend society is the loss of liberty and freedom

Mill would say on the argument of "what if TV is offensive or harmful or what if art is offensive or harmful (to society)?
Don't look, turn it off etc...

Arguments-
It gets argued that there's no such thing as self-regarding actions
such as people who do drugs their whole life and never hurt anyone but themselves
is it really true that there are actually solely self-regarding actions?
is this druggie really only harming himself and not someone else somehow??

--Paternalism principle (not consistent w/ Mill)
helping others because they don't want or can't to help themselves
I.E. poverty, victims etc...--

DIMENSIONS OF H.P
Harm to others - obviously when someone goes out and harms others

Harm to self- doesn't have a good argument against suicide oddly
> social coercion can be used there to help stop someone from committing suicide as long as their decision is encumbered
can help crazies, drunks and suicidal people like actually crazy
> under this pretense its 100% a woman choice to abort an abortion