1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
would cause the degradation of society.
Various types, during the evolution of man, played certain roles in culture. An NT would most
likely be a shaman or witch doctor in primitive times, an SP a craftsman, etc. But a society does
not need as many shamans as it does craftsmen and hunters, thus, NTs are found in smaller
percentages. A similar occurrence with intelligence is found. Higher intelligence tends to lead to
deviation from the norm, but human cultures require conformity. Thus, we find certain personality
types and intelligences existing in small percentages. This being so, it is dangerous to apply quality
of happiness to any cost/benefit analysis, as all types rely on each other for survival.
assumed that all are (or have the potential) capable of viewing view the world as he does. Mill,
however was wrong. While happiness may be objective, what brings about this happiness varies
from type to type. Therefore, since different types value different forms of happiness, Mill can not
apply quantity and quality to his cost benefit analysis, for his moral judges are most likely to be
NTs and not SPs, and are therefore going to apply a different guideline of quality than the SP. This
being so, we are forced to criticize Mill's Utilitarianism for being insufficient in acknowledging
that while the desire for happiness may be universal, happiness itself is not and thus can't be used
as a grounding for Utilitarianism.
philosophers being aware that there are naturally occurring differences in personality types, they
automatically have assumed that their personality type (whether or not consciously so) is the
standard. Both Kant and Mill, because of their similar personality type, highly value certain
personality/temperament types (NTs of all the temperaments) and a well-developed intelligence.
Kant and Mill value intelligence as all with their similar personality type do. By understanding this
perspective, not of the culture, but of the individual, we can understand the reasoning behind Kant
and Mill's philosophy. Not only will we necessarily have a better understanding of a philosopher's