1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
would not have been Mill as we know him today, and his work (if he still chose to philosophize)
would reflect a different style of rumination and valuing--had he been an SJ7
most likely valued religion and other traditions as the sole source of morality as well as (in the case
of religion) its being sanctioned by omnipotent powers (as reason and coherence aren't as valued).
judges and individuals, we need only apply the same formula we used when discussing Kant. By
looking at the sixteen types, we determine that only a select group of them will have the personality
that is required to fit Mill's morally judges. We can also determine that a well rounded IQ of > 140
is most likely needed for those with the most corresponding personality types to be fully intelligent
and capable of moral judging and action. When we also subtract out those environmental
influences that prohibit the mental cultivation of the individual (e.g. "The present wretched
education and wretched social arrangements. . ." [Mill 1979, pg. 13]) we come to the same
number of eligible individuals as found in our formulation for Kant's "rational beings" ~60,000.
What we can infer, logically, from this is that the personality of Mill and Kant are similar, even
though their specific philosophies may differ. As both Kant and Mill are both NTs (and more
specifically ~INTPs), it is understandable that in their philosophies, they both highly value the
same specific personality and intelligence as they are only reflecting their perspective in their
philosophy--who they are.
may very well be so, but, I would like to contest that this is not a valid or practical grounding for
the morality called Utilitarianism. The problem that I have noticed is tied into perspective, Mill
assumes that what makes one happy should, and could, make everyone happy, but with any
knowledge of the psychology of personality we know this to be incorrect. Mill, by including his