Skip to main content

Moral Expertise: A Millian Perspective

  • Chapter
Ethics Expertise

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((PHME,volume 87))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bain, Alexander (1882). John Stuart Mill: A Criticism with Personal Recollections. London: Longmans, Green & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, Terrance (2000). ‘The Formation of Character: Mill’s “Ethology” Reconsidered.’ Polity XXXIII(Fall), 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, Jeremy (1948). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. New York: Hafner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Fred (1984). Happiness, Justice, and Freedom: The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, Richart (1959). Ethical Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, Richard (1988). ‘Fairness to Indirect Optimific Theories in Ethics.’ Ethics, 357–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D.G. (1974). ‘Mill’s Act Utilitarianism.’ Philosophical Quarterly 24, 67–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, Janet (1991). John Stuart Mill and the Writing of Character. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, Erik (1990). ‘The Oughts and Cans of Objective Consequentialism.’ Utilitas 11, 91–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, Roger (1997). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbach, Eldon J. (Ed.) (1999). Mill and the Moral Character of Liberalism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, Gerald F. (1980). ‘Mill’s Theory of Moral Rules.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58, 265–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, John (1983). Mill on Liberty: A Defence, 2nd ed. London: Routledge. 28–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R.M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Snyder, Frances (1997). ‘The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism.’ Utilitas 9, 241–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Snyder, Frances (1999). ‘Response to Carlson and Qizilbash.’ Utilitas 11, 106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenman, James (2000). ‘Consequentialism and Cluelessness.’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 29, 342–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, David (1965). Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, David (1994). ‘Mill’s Theory of Morality.’ In: D. Lyons (Ed.), Rights, Welfare, and Mill’s Moral Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. (Originally published in Noûs 10 (1976), 101–120).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabbott, J.D. (1956). ‘Interpretations of Mill’s “Utilitarianism”.’ Philosophical Quarterly 6, 115–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart (1832). ‘Austin’s Lectures on Jurisprudence.’ In: John M. Robson (ed.), Essays on Equality, Laws, and Education, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. XXI. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart (1833). ‘Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy.’ In: John M. Robson (Ed.), Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. X. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart (1838). ‘Bentham.’ In: John M. Robson (Ed.), Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. X. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart (1859a). ‘Letter to Alexander Bain (14 Nov.),’ In: Francis Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley (Eds.), The Later Letters: 1849 to 1873, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vols. XIV–XVII. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart (1859b). On Liberty. In: John M. Robson (Ed.), Essays on Politics and Society, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vols. XVIII–XIX. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart (1861a). Utilitarianism. In: John M. Robson (Ed.), Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. X. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart (1861b). Considerations on Representative Government. In: John M. Robson (Ed.), Essays on Politics and Society, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vols. XVIII–XIX. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart (1872). A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive. In: John M. Robson (Ed.), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vols. VII–VIII. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart (1874). ‘Nature.’ In: John M. Robson (Ed.), Essays on Politics and Society, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. X. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Dale E. (1998). ‘Internal Sanctions in Mill’s Moral Psychology.’ Utilitas 10 (1998), pp. 68–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Dale E. (2003). ‘Actual-Consequence Act Utilitarianism and the Best Possible Humans.’ Ratio XVI, 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morales, Maria H. (1996). Perfect Equality: John Stuart Mill on Well-Constituted Communities. Lanham MA: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qizilbash, Mozaffar (1999). ‘The Rejection of Objective Consequentialism.’ Utilitas 11, 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey (2001). ‘Mill’s “Proof” of the Principle of Utility: A More Than Half-Hearted Defense.’ Social Philosophy and Policy 18, 330–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, W. (1999). Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidgwick, Henry (1981). The Methods of Ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, Marcus (1977). ‘Actual Consequence Utilitarianism.’ Mind 86, 67–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, Marcus (1983). ‘Further on Actual Consequence Utilitarianism.’ Mind 92, 270–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skorupski, John (1989). John Stuart Mill. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J.J.C. (1973). ‘An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics.’ In: J.J.C. Smart and B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temkin, Jack (1978). ‘Actual Consequence Utilitarianism: A Reply to Professor Singer.’ Mind 87, 412–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urmson, J.O. (1953). ‘The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill.’ Philosophical Quarterly 3, 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Miller, D.E. (2005). Moral Expertise: A Millian Perspective. In: Rasmussen, L. (eds) Ethics Expertise. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 87. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3820-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3820-8_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3819-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3820-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics