Mill Philosophy Overview

Utilitarianism [A] What is utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. Consequentialist ethical theories say that what determines the moral worth of an action is its consequences. But consequentialist theories differ as to which consequences are good. For utilitarianism, the relevant consequence is utility, which refers to pleasure. The Greatest Happiness Principle: “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” More pleasure, less pain! Quantity vs. quality: utilitarianism has a particular understanding of the term “pleasure” – it refers to a higher, intellectual pleasure, not an animal, physical pleasure. Mill argues that anyone who as experience both kinds of pleasure will prefer the former (on the condition that they are taught properly and given appropriate opportunities…) Those who appreciate higher pleasures will never be satisfied with lower ones: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question…” (p. 368). Utilitarianism also looks at overall happiness, not just the happiness of a single individual. “As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires [the agent] to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator” (p. 368). So we should act so as to increase the happiness of all, not just of ourselves. Mill talks about the highest virtue being sacrifice of one’s own happiness for that of others. One possible objection to utilitarianism is that it sets to high a standard by requiring that people “always act from the inducement of promoting the general interests of society” (p. 369). Mill responds that motives don’t matter; what matters is the consequences. Most of what we do we do from motives other than improving society; he gives the example of saving a drowning man in the hope of receiving a reward. This action is still morally right, even though it was not motivated by duty. Another possible objection is that there is no time to stop and weigh all of the consequences of our actions before acting. Mill relies that we have been learning from experience for the whole history of the human species; it is a mistake to say that we just start calculating consequences right before we act (e.g murder, theft). Because of this history, we also will find that there is general agreement about the rightness or wrongness of most acts. [B] Proof of the principle of utility? Can we prove that utility should be the “ultimate end” of our actions? “Questions about ends are…questions about what things are desirable” (p. 371). Mill says that the only proof that

something is desirable is that people actually do desire it. And we see that “each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness” (p. 371). Not only that, but we need to show that happiness (if it is to be the ultimate end) is the only thing that people desire. Mill argues that the other things that we do desire (e.g. virtue, the absence of vice) can also be desired for their own sake, but they are desired because they are part of our happiness. “The ingredients of happiness are very various and each of them is desirable in itself, and not merely when considered as swelling an aggregate” (p. 372). [C] Standard arguments against utilitarianism What if “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” required one, or a few, people to suffer greatly? How can this be moral? If we are supposed to be neutral with regard to who is “receiving” happiness, doesn’t this conflict with our intuition that some people are more deserving of happiness than other? How can we know whether or not our actions will lead to happiness, especially in the long term? Can we really quantify or qualify pleasure? Isn’t it just individual preference? What about actions that are motivated by immoral motives but lead to great happiness? Are they really moral? What about actions that are motivated by good motives but cause suffering? Study Questions 1. What is the greatest happiness principle? 2. What is utility? 3. What does it mean to say that only pleasure and freedom from pain are desirable “as ends”? 4. Why does Mill say that the quality of pleasure should count as much as the quantity? 6. How does he justify claiming that these are “higher” pleasures? 7. Why might an opponent of utilitarianism say that its standards are too high? 8. What does Mill say about the relationship between the motives of our actions and their morality? 9. What does it mean to say that utility is the ultimate end of human action? 10. What is the scapegoat objection to utilitarianism? 11. What is the “just deserts” objection to utilitarianism? 12. What problems arise from the claim that we can act to increase the total amount of happiness in the world? 13. What role do motives play in utilitarianism’s assessment of the morality of actions? Why might this be a problem for utilitarianism?