Lesson 3 John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

LESSON 3
John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism
 From Utilitarianism, 1861

 JS Mill adds a qualitative dimension to Bentham’s purely quantitative one.
 Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle is still hedonistic, since it:
– “…holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,

wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By ‘happiness’ is
intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness,’ pain, and the
privation of pleasure.”
 But Mill’s version modifies Bentham’s:
– “It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact, that
some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.”
Mill on the Higher Pleasures

Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle of
utility must distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not merely quantitatively. For Mill,
utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to any other
animals. He thinks that there are higher intellectual and lower base pleasures. We, as
moral agents, are capable of searching and desiring higher intellectual pleasures more
than pigs are capable of. We undermine ourselves if we only and primarily desire
sensuality; this is because we are capable of higher intellectual pleasurable goods. For
Mill, crude bestial pleasure, which are appropriate for animals, are degrading to us
because we are by nature not easily satisfied by pleasures only for pigs. Human
pleasures are qualitatively different from animal pleasures. It is unfair to assume that we
merely pursue pleasures appropriate for beasts even if there are instances when we
choose to pursue such base pleasures. To explain this, Mill recognizes the empirical
fact that there are different kinds of pleasures:
It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact, that some
kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be
absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as
quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity
alone.
Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An excessive quantity of what
is otherwise pleasurable might result in pain. We can consider for example, our
experience of excessive eating or exercising. Whereas eating the right amount of food
can be pleasurable, excessive eating may not be. The same is true when exercising. If
the quality of pleasure is sometimes more important than quantity, then it is important to
consider the standards whereby differences of pleasures can be judged. The test that
Mill suggests is simple. In deciding over two comparable pleasures, it is important to
experience both and to discover which one is actually more preferred than the other.
There is no other way of determining which of the two pleasures is preferable except by
appealing to the actual preferences and experiences. What Mill discovers
anthropologically is that actual choices of knowledgeable persons point that higher
intellectual pleasures are preferable than purely sensual appetites.
In defending further the comparative choice between intellectual and bestial pleasures,
Mill offers an imaginative experiment. He asks whether a human person would prefer to
accept the highly pleasurable life of an animal while at the same time being denied of
everything that makes him a person. He thinks that few, if any, would give up human
qualities of higher reason for the pleasures of a pig. In the most famous quote in
Mill’s Utilitarianism, we read:
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. The
other party to the comparison knows both sides.
Source: Bulaong, Oscar G, Calano, Mark Joseph T, Lagliva, Albert M, Mariano,

Michael Ner E, Principe, Jesus Deogracias Z. Ethics: Foundations of Moral
Valuation. Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc., 2018.
Greatest Number Principle

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent
alone and independently from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures,
regardless of how high, intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the
pleasure of the greatest number affected by the consequences of our actions. Mill
explains:
"I have dwelt on this point, as being a necessary part of a perfectly

just conception of Utility or Happiness, considered as the directive rule of
human conduct. But it is by no means an indispensable condition to the
acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent's own
greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether; and if it
may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its
nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the
world in general is immensely a gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore, could only
attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each
individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as
happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit. But the bare
enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutation superfluous."
Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness
alone; it cannot be all about us. if we the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not
constitute a moral good. If we are the only ones who are made happy by our actions,
then we cannot be morally good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of
sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone's happiness, including our own,

as the standard by which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that utilitarianism is
not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality of life for
all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone's happiness, in fact, the greatest
happiness of the greatest number. Mill identifies the eradication of disease, using
technology, and other practical ways as examples of utilitarianism. Consequently,
utilitarianism maximizes the total amount of pleasure over displeasure for the greatest
number. Because of the premium given to the consequences of actions, Mill pushes for
the moral irrelevance in evaluating actions.
"He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right,
whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble: he who
betrays the friend that trusts him, is guilty of a crime, even if his object be to
serve another friend to whom he is under greater obligations. But to speak only
of actions done from the motive of duty, and in direct obedience to principle: it is
a misapprehension of the utilitarian mode of thought, to conceive it as implying
that people should fix their minds upon so wide a generality as the world, or
society at large. The great majority of good actions are intended, not for the
benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is
made up; and the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these
occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned, except so far as is
necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he is not violating the rights
—that is, the legitimate and authorized expectations—of any one else."
Source: Bulaong, Oscar G, Calano, Mark Joseph T, Lagliva, Albert M, Mariano,

Michael Ner E, Principe, Jesus Deogracias Z. Ethics: Foundations of Moral
Valuation. Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc., 2018.
Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans, than to build a
hospital because there are fewer sick people? Explain your answer.
No, it is not justifiable. Building a basketball court will make many people happy. However, we
have to ask: is it really necessary? Furthermore, the basketball court will bring happiness to the
basketball fans, but that may not be the case for those who aren't fans of the sport. Meanwhile,
the hospital will benefit everyone, sick or not. It will also bring more job opportunities as the
hospital will need staff. If we were to weigh the options, building a hospital has more benefits,
which equates to more pleasure. Therefore, it will not be justifiable to build the basketball court
when the hospital is the more beneficial option.
Critical Questions and Modifications
 Ivan Karamazov’s challenge to Alyosha, his brother:
– “Tell me honestly, I challenge you—answer me: imagine that you are charged with
building the edifice of human destiny, the ultimate aim of which is to bring people
happiness, to give them peace and contentment at last, but that in order to achieve this
it is essential and unavoidable to torture just one little speck of creation, that same little
child beating her chest with her little fists, and imagine that this edifice, has to
be erected on her unexpiated tears. Would you agree to be the architect under those
conditions? Tell me honestly!”
(Source: The Karamazov Brothers, trans. Ignat Avsey (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1994),
I, part 2, bk. 5, ch. 4. First published in 1879-80.)
 Read the short story "The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas" by Ursula K Le Guin.
Please find file by clicking on the link: https://sites.asiasociety.org/asia21summit/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/3.-Le-Guin-Ursula-The-Ones-Who-Walk-Away-From-
Omelas.pdf
– "They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. . .They all know that it has to be
there. . .[T]hey all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the
tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, . . .even the abundance of
their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's
abominable misery. . . . If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that
vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed;
but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of
Omelas would wither and be destroyed. Those are the terms."
20th-Century Modifications of Classical Utilitarianism
 Distinguishing between so-called “Act Utilitarianism” (AU) and “Rule Utilitarianism” (RU)
Act Utilitarianism:
– focuses on the act itself

– more or less the classical version of Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism:
– The moral value of an act depends on whether the moral rule it follows will result in the
greatest happiness for the greatest number
– Ex (fictional): executing super villains: “It does not make us any different from them.”
– Real-life example: the “Reign of Terror” in the aftermath of the French Revolution

Lesson 3 John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson 3 John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesson 3 John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LESSON 3

John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

 From Utilitarianism, 1861

– “…holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,

 But Mill’s version modifies Bentham’s:

Mill on the Higher Pleasures

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be

Source: Bulaong, Oscar G, Calano, Mark Joseph T, Lagliva, Albert M, Mariano,

Greatest Number Principle

"I have dwelt on this point, as being a necessary part of a perfectly

Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone's happiness, including our own,

Source: Bulaong, Oscar G, Calano, Mark Joseph T, Lagliva, Albert M, Mariano,

Critical Questions and Modifications

 Ivan Karamazov’s challenge to Alyosha, his brother:

20th-Century Modifications of Classical Utilitarianism

 Distinguishing between so-called “Act Utilitarianism” (AU) and “Rule Utilitarianism” (RU)

– focuses on the act itself

– Real-life example: the “Reign of Terror” in the aftermath of the French Revolution

You might also like