dialogue

John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism Notes John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) John Stuart Mill published his essay “Utilitarianism” in 1861 at the age of fifty-five. Utilitarianism means “useful” and so his essay concerns the “usefulness of how and what we do to live well.” “Utilitarianism” is an essay, which is a short literary composition on a single subject usually presenting the author’s viewpoint. It is probably the most widely read essay of its type. This can be attributed to both its conciseness and its scope. Mill’s father, James, pushed him academically, and by the age of three he had learned Greek. In his early twenties, Mill had a mental breakdown from which he suffered intermittent bouts for the rest of his life. His father was a great believer in utilitarianism and was a close friend of philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who believed that happiness could actually be measured and quantified. John Stuart Mill raised the cause of utilitarianism from quantification to humanity. He believed that we could discover without quatification the cause and effect of more happiness by looking at the past and predicting what will happen in the future under similar circumstances. For Mill, cause and effect creates a decision and a behavior, which then forms a loop. Mill believed we haven’t learned anything if we don’t use what we have learned. Consequences help us plan for the future. Mill wrote this essay to debate his critics' assumption that he was 1) hedonistic, 2) had no first principle, and 3) used circular reasoning. He uses a scientific, systematic defense, which is observable, measurable, and predictable, in order to advocate a moral solution in a philosophical way. Utilitarianism requires that ethical and political customs should be judged by their ability to advance the happiness for mankind. Mill tries to give a scientific answer of what the good is that is rooted in human nature, and he tries to demonstrate the difference between selfishness and self-interest. For instance, it is in our own self-interest to make sure that those around us are happy. This does not mean that we run out and try to fix the unhappiness of the world. Mill believes that the majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals—that which the good of the world consists. John Stuart Mill’s viewpoint and his first principle is the “happiness principle,” which states that in order to be happy we should all strive for the greatest happiness (or good) for the greatest number. This “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are “right” in proportion, as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. For Mill “happiness” is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, and “unhappiness” is pain and the privation of pleasure. Mill maintains that there are two types of pleasure: intellectual pleasure (which uses the higher faculties) and base pleasure (which are those of sensations). Those capable of both would choose the intellectual pleasure. Happiness is also subject to QUANTITY and QUALITY and of the two; the one that is based on quality is the most agreeable. For example, pleasure that employs the higher faculties of man are of a greater quality. Mill states that “few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasure…no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even if they were persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs.” Mill contends that the quality of happiness for a person of higher faculties requires more to make him or her happy. They are also more capable of greater suffering…and can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence. Thus for Mill, “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;” better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. For if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the questions. The human being, who is the other party in the comparison, knows both sides. The test therefore of judging quality and the rule for measuring it against quantity requires self- consciousnessand self-observation, whereas the person of lesser intellect fails to make the comparisons.

Arguments against Utilitarianism

1. It doesn’t work in practice. How do you tell who is and who isn’t happy? 2. How do you work out what produces happiness? 3. Who wants to part of the minority that may be crushed, in order to make the majority happy? 4. Utilitarianism looks at actions and their consequences, and disregards the enormously complicating

question of motives. John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism notes courtesy of Joyce Murphy, Adjunct Philosophy Instructor