John Stuart Mill- ‘Utilitarianism’

Notes from the text. (numbers represent paragraphs)

Mills Hedonism

1. John Stuart Mill agreed on the same common principle as Jeremy Bentham. ‘Pleasure and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends’ (p513).

2. Critics have pointed out that by basing our ethics/morals on the greatest pleasure Bentham and Mill reduce humans to the level of ‘swine’- as animals who only have base pleasures.

3.1. Yet Mill suggests it is these critics which are the ones reducing what it means to be a human by this very comparison. For it suggests that humans have the same pleasures as animals. But in fact, Mill argues, humans have more elevated desires than animals. Especially of the pleasure of the intellect. ‘Once they are conscious of them [the higher pleasures], do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification’.

3.2. Mill suggest most ‘traditional’ Epicureans (another name for someone who believes in Utilitarianism) such as Bentham, would normally place the ‘higher pleasures’ of intellectual pursuit higher than that of the pleasures of the sensations in their quantitative measurements such as intensity, duration etc . ‘That is, in their circumstantial advantages rather than their intrinsic nature’. However Mill argues that some pleasures are of a intrinsically higher quality. We should not just look at the quantity of pleasure or pain that an action gives us, we should look at the quality of the pleasure.

4. But then how does Mill decide bigger ‘quality’ pleasures? Here is how….

If someone, or a group of people, have experience of two pleasures and decidedly prefer one over the other (nor would swap any quantity of one over the other), then this is assuredly the higher quality pleasure.

5. Yet people who are clever take a lot more to get satisfaction/pleasure than the dumb sort, and are also more readily dissatisfied with life’s little imperfections. Why be smart then? Well, Mill argues that those who are satisfied with their lot are confusing happiness with being content. And this is a big difference. ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’. BIG FLAW IN MILL’S ARGUMENT (ESSAY). WHO IS TO SAY THAT PEOPLE WANT TO RAISE THEMSELVES.

6. Not much was said in this paragraph

Mill’s Consequentialism

7. Mill suggests that there is a different form to utilitarianism to the traditional. Whereas Bentham looked at the utility in terms of actions Mill looks a the utility in terms of the rules one follows. (hereafter Mill et al’s form of utilitarianism is known as Act Utilitarianism and Mill‘s is known as Rule Utilitarianism). Rule Utilitarianism is defined as the rules and precepts for human conduct by the observance of which an satisfactory existence might be secured for all mankind.

8. Utilitarianism then does not mean the agents own happiness when he considers his actions, but that of all that are concerned. Do onto others as you would be done by. However two factors must be in place for this to be effective.

a) ‘laws and social arrangements should place the happiness, or (as speaking practically it may be called) the interest, or every individual as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole’.

b) education and opinion must be set so that it is established in peoples minds the association between the individuals happiness and the good of the whole. This new form of utilitarianism was to address some of the big criticisms directed against Bentham.

How Mill used Rule Utilitarianism to deflect criticism of Bentham’s version of utilitarianism (phem!)

9. Some objectors may say it is too much for someone to think of the general public good in all of their actions. But Mill argues they don’t have to! They just have to do right in a general way and let the few public policy makers make the big decisions. Just by looking after the individual virtue they can generally follow the public good. Nor do people have to be dominated by moral right in all they do. More bigger motivations will normally be employed in 99% of situations. Just follow the general rules will do.

10. It is a general criticism of Benthams consequentialism that it leads to consequences that are ‘expedient’ rather than based on morals. A example of this expediency is the innocent man in the trail of the great fire of London being convicted in order to prevent the greater evil of a riot. In Mill’s consequentialism the innocent man would not be convicted because innocents being convicted is generally bad. Or is it? Mill uses lying as an example- you shouldn’t lye generally because it affects the general veracity (trustworthiness) of mankind. But to confound this he suggests there are exceptions- ie such as withholding information that would be bad for a dying man. However caution needs to be made when reviewing the exceptions. My point is who made this exemptions!!!

11. A final criticism is that people don’t have time to always weigh up effects of conduct and actions vis-à-vis actions. But they don’t have too Mill protests- its all in precedent baby!! Thus ‘the principle of utility admit to indefinite improvement’. (Mill p517).