John Stuart Mill\'s approach to Utilitarianism PDF

Preview

Summary

John Stuart Mill’s Approach to UtilitarianismIt 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 only because they only know their own side of the question.” ― John...

Description

John Stuart Mill’s Approach to Utilitarianism 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 only because they only know their own side of the question.” ― John Stuart Mill

J.S. Mill (1806-1873) was a British philosopher who contributed greatly to the theory of utilitarianism, which is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Utilitarianism considers the morally right action to be the action which produces the most good. The theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. It is distinguished from egoism as it holds that one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good.

J.S. Mill and Bentham were both hedonistic. Hedonistic Utilitarianism is a theory which assumes that the rightness of an action depends entirely on the amount of pleasure it tends to produce and the amount of pain it tends to prevent.

J.S. Mill, although a follower of Bentham, disagreed with many of his theories. One particular claim of Bentham was that there is no qualitative difference between pleasures, only a quantitative one. This essentially implies that the pleasure of playing video game is on the same level as the pleasure one gets by visiting the Louvre. This was criticized by Mill who differentiated between intellectual and sensual pleasures on the basis of intuition. He explained that Intellectual pleasures are of a higher, better, sort than the ones that are merely sensual, and that we share with animals. The list of such better enjoyments includes the pleasures of intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments. These enjoyments make use of highly developed capacities, like judgment and empathy.

Mill provides proof of his claim that intellectual pleasures are better in kind than others. He doesn't attempt a mere appeal to raw intuition. Instead, he argues that those persons who have experienced both view the higher as better than the lower. To quote him, “Of two pleasures, if

there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.” Or to use his most famous example, — it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

Mills also argues that happiness is the sole basis of morality, and that people never desire anything but happiness. He supports this claim by showing that all the other objects of people's desire are either means to happiness, or included in the definition of happiness. Mill further explains that the sentiment of justice is actually based on utility, and that rights exist only because they are necessary for human happiness. He claims that general happiness is “a good to the aggregate of all persons.”

In his own words, “The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible is that people hear it; and similarly with the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people do actually desire it. If happiness, the end that the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself, were not acknowledged in theory and in practice to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was an end. No reason can be given why.”

According to Mills utilitarianism coincides with “natural" sentiments that originate from humans' social nature. Therefore, if society were to embrace utilitarianism as an ethic, people would naturally internalize these standards as morally binding.

Another point on which Mills differed from Bentham is that Bentham's theory was act utilitarianism, but Mill's was rule utilitarianism. Bentham's theory applied the principle of utility to individual acts and situations directly. This meant that some abhorrent acts were permitted. E.g. two torturers may be justified in their activity if their pleasure outweighs the harm done to the victim. Mill developed rule utilitarianism to avoid this. Mill suggested that the principle of utlity should be used to determine moral rules which govern utility. For example, killing people tends to lower net utility, one must not not kill another person. This seems like an improvement, but there are situations where breaking the rule increases utility where it may be expedient to break them, to put it Mill's way. Not to do this is to worship the

rules rather than the principle of utility itself. In order to avoid rule worship the theory collapses into act utlitarianism, as it became unavoidable to make exceptions to every occasion of this sort.

Even though Mills disagreed with Bentham on many crucial points, both attacked social traditions that were justified by appeals to natural order. They said that correct appeal is to utility itself. Traditions often turned out to be relics of barbarous times, and appeals to nature as a form of justification were just ways to try and rationalize continued deference to those relics.

Like Bentham, Mill sought to use utilitarianism to inform law and social policy. The aim of increasing happiness underlies his arguments for women's suffrage and free speech. We can be said to have certain rights, then — but those rights are underwritten by utility. If one can show that a purported right or duty is harmful, then one has shown that it is not genuine. One of Mills most famous arguments to this effect can be found in his writing on women's suffrage when he discusses the ideal marriage of partners, noting that the ideal exists between individuals of “cultivated faculties” who influence each other equally. Improving the social status of women was important because they were capable of these cultivated faculties, and denying them access to education and other opportunities for development is forgoing a significant source of happiness. Further, the men who would deny women the opportunity for education, self-improvement, and political expression do so out of base motives, and the resulting pleasures are not ones that are of the best sort.

Criticisms Some major criticisms of J.S. Mill’s theory are as follows: Arguments against hedonism Mill’s theory being hedonistic, all the arguments against Hedonism apply to it. Hedonism becomes partial due to its excessive emphasis only on the sentiment aspect of human life. In the overall or complete satisfaction of the self, the satisfaction of both reason and feeling is necessary.

Difference between pleasure and happiness Mill treated happiness as the ultimate goal but then made a blunder by calling it pleasure. There is difference between pleasure and happiness. According to Dewey, “Pleasure is transitory and relative, enduring while some specific activity endures, and having reference only to that activity. Happiness is permanent and universal. It results only when the act is such a one as will satisfy all the interests of the self concerned, or will lead to no conflict, either present or remote. Happiness is the feeling of the whole self, as opposed to the feeling of some one aspect of the self. Pleasure is the result of a compounding of pleasures. Contradiction between Psychological Hedonism and Utilitarianism Psychological Hedonism and Utilitarianism are two mutually contradictory theories. There is no way of passing from selfishness to unselfishness. On the one hand Mill concedes man’s natural yearning for pleasure, while on the other hand he makes Utilitarianism the ultimate aim.He vacillates between social and individual pleasure. It becomes impossible to pass from individual to social good if selfishness and unselfishness are treated as mutually contradictory. Fallacy of figure of speech The logic presented in favour of Ethical Hedonism by Mill is blemished by the fallacy of figure of speech. That which can be desired is not necessarily desirable. Desirable means that which ought to be desired.Each object of our desires is not desirable. The word desirable should be applied to an object which seems right to reason. Fallacy of composition The logic, for Ethical Hedonism, given by Mill, is guilty of the fallacy of composition. According to Mill, the pleasure of an individual is good for him and it, therefore, follows that the pleasure of everybody is good for everybody. In the words of Mackenzie, “It is forgotten that neither the pleasures nor the persons are capable of being made into an aggregate. A sum of pleasures is not pleasure, any more than sum of men is man.

References Utilitarianism (Essay) by John Stuart Mill https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/mill1863.pdf The History of Utilitarianism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#JohStuMil Utilitarianism (Summary) https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/utilitarianism/summary/ Selected Criticisms of Mill, Hedonism, and Utilitarianism http://faculty.fiu.edu/~hauptli/CriticismsofMillHedonismandUtilitarianism.htm...