"Laudable injustice" looks like a contradiction, but Mill uses these words to describe what happens when an act or omission that is unjust in most cases is justifiable in a small group of other cases. Mill uses the example of kidnapping a doctor at gunpoint and forcing the reluctant doctor to treat a dying child. In this final episode we apply Mill' idea of laudable injustice to the famous Trolley Problem. If you don't know what that is, then come join us.

This episode begins with an imaginary conversation between Mill and John Locke about the idea of natural rights. Mill rejects the idea of rights that exist outside of civil society and Locke has difficulty responding without engaging in circular reasoning. The remainder of the episode is an account of how difficult it is to use the idea of justice in the debate about the morality of abortion.

In this episode I explain Mill's account of "feelings" of justice and injustice, and how Mill ties this concept to the idea of a violation of a moral or legal rule and the idea of punishment. I will also discuss Mill's concept of "a right" and what it means to say that one does or does not have a right to something (e.g. life, liberty, or a cup of coffee).

In chapter 5 of Understanding John Stuart Mill, the most serious criticism of the utility principle is dissected and explained. The criticism is based on the claim that utilitarians cannot accommodate the ideas of justice and injustice. We will show in several steps how Mill's responds.

In this episode we discuss Mill's attempt to show that the following propositions are not contradictory: (1) Happiness is the only thing desirable as an end; and (2) Virtue is a good in itself, without looking to any end beyond it. Mill does this by proposing that happiness has psychological parts.

Mill's theory of life has two elements: (1) Happiness is desirable as an end; and, (2) Happiness is the only thing desirable as an end. In this episode we will discuss Mill's unusual "proof" of element #1. The larger question is: How does one prove by reasoning (logic) that happiness is desirable as an end?

This episode is a continuation of EP7. It is about Aristotle and Mill's claim that all humans have social feelings for all other humans. It is important to point out that this is an empirical claim, to be proved only by experience and observation, not by an analysis of the concept of "humanity" or "human being." The question is whether Mill can support this claim. In the twentieth century social scientists thought that there was sufficient data to disprove Mill's expansive claim about social feelings.

Once we understand the principle of utility, what are the motives for obeying it? Mill writes that this is a problem for all moral theories. The general question is "Why should I be moral?" The particular question is "Why should I promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number?" Is it because I want people to like me? Or because I am afraid they will dislike me?" And what role does a person's conscience play in making moral decisions? How does conscience attach itself to the principle of utility?

Mill continues his responses to his critics in the concluding section of chapter 2 of Utilitarianism. The two final criticisms are that the principle of utility is useless in most cases in which moral choices must be made, and that utilitarianism promotes partiality or selfishness. Mill answer the first objection by making the surprising claim that utilitarianism can use ordinary moral rules in making moral choices. He answers the second objection by saying that partiality is a criticism made to all ethical theories not just the utilitarian theory. But the problem lies not in the theories but in the people who are using the theories to make moral decisions.

Mill continues his lesson on the definition of utilitarianism by responding to his critics. In this episode, we discuss several responses to the criticisms that (1) utilitarianism is "too high for humans" to ever attain; (2) utilitarians are "cold and unsympathizing people"; (3) utilitarianism is a "godless doctrine"; and (4) utilitarianism is an "immoral doctrine" because it tells people how do only those acts that are "expedient" for them to do.