Too High for Mankind This article will evaluate the merits of the "Too High for Mankind" argument in relation to the validity of the theory of utilitarianism. More specifically, we will present the argument, Milner's responses to the argument, and then analyze the structure, validity, and merits of the arguments. The "Too High for Humanity" argument is the notion that: if being morally right only exists when people maximize society's pleasure, then it is something humans are not good at. not capable. To be clearer, this implies that humans, by nature, are not willing to sacrifice themselves for the maximum benefit of society; thus, the practice of utilitarianism is beyond humans and is not a practical theory for judging morality. From this; another point made is that since only the act that maximizes happiness is right; therefore, anyone who does not choose the act that will bring maximum happiness is mistaken. This play on words is actually very meaningful when visualizing a scenario of our hypothetical weekend. Imagine a weekend where you commit no “bad” things, by utilitarian standards. You get up at 12 o'clock, because your sleep brings less happiness than your commitment to starting a new homeless. This shelter for the homeless represents a heavy investment of time and yet the prospect of reintegrating these people into society brings greater happiness. In short, aside from the lack of motivation to sacrifice, the utilitarian view of good and evil is far too demanding. Another problem this raises is that utilitarianism can contradict popular beliefs on moral issues. For example, in the hypothetical case of Pinky and her grandmother (where Pinky poisons her sick grandmother but instead discovers a cure for her grandmother's illness),...... in the middle of paper ......ct maximizes overall happiness (check plate). There is a logical fallacy in Milner's answer, because motivations are a necessary precursor to actions. Consider a society in which no one had extra money and was indifferent to saving lives. Under these assumptions, if a man saw a baby drowning, he would probably not save the baby because he would feel no pleasure in saving it. Therefore, he will have no incentive to save the baby and the act will not take place; in fact, this would never happen since everyone would be in the same situation. Basically, despite what Milner believes, motivations play a large role in the occurrences of action. In conclusion, since the argument "Too high for humanity" is valid and Milner's response cannot satisfactorily refute the argument, Milner's response fails and the objection "Too high for humanity » is valid. Humanity” still remains a gap in utilitarianism.