Mill’s Utilitarianism Essay

In the beginning of Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill states that throughout history very little progress has been made towards developing a set of moral standards to judge what is morally right or wrong. Although a certain disagreement about such foundations can also be found in the most â€Å"certain† sciences, in those areas truths can still have meaning without understanding the principles underlying them. On the other hand, in philosophy, where all actions exist to proceed towards a particular end, statements unfounded upon a general principle have very little validity. Therefore Mill says that in order to know what morality dictates, it is necessary to know by what standard human actions should be judged. He rejects the idea of a moral instinct inherent in human mind, which supplies us with this ability to judge. Even if such a sense would exist, it wouldn’t show us whether something is right or wrong in a particular matter. Instead, Mill assumes that right and wrong are questions of experience and he tries to show that the principle of utility or â€Å"the greatest happiness principle† is the foundation of this distinction. In Chapter two, Mill tries to reply to some common misconceptions about utilitarianism. He claims that many people mistake utility as the rejection of pleasures, whereas in reality, it is pleasure itself, promoting happiness. He thus defines utilitarianism as the creed which â€Å"holds that actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness†. Accordingly pleasure and absence of pain are the only goals that are inherently good and desirable in themselves. Every other action or experience is only insofar good as it promotes pleasure. However, it is wrong to assume people should only do what makes them personally happy. Instead the standard of judging an act is the happiness of all people. Therefore people shouldn’t distinguish between their own happiness and the happiness of others. The motives underlying a certain act are of no importance in utilitarianism. Instead only the results of our conduct, or more specifically the impact on the general happiness, are to consider. In continuing, Mill states that some pleasures are more valuable than others, so not only the quantity but also the quality of pleasures resulting from a certain act determines its moral rightness. We can experience this difference in quality when we give one pleasure a clear preference over another, although it comes along with a greater amount of discomfort, and would not dismiss it for any quantity of the other pleasure. Mill claims that, given equal access to all kinds of pleasures, every man or woman gives priority to those employing their higher faculties. Appropriately he writes that †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†. Thus only people who have experienced both the higher and the lower pleasures are qualified to judge the quality of a pleasure. But by what extent are pleasures measurable or comparable? And what is it that makes a â€Å"higher† pleasure superior over a â€Å"lower†? Another criticism Mill responds to is that happiness can’t be the goal of human actions, since it’s unattainable. Moreover, detractors of the utilitarian moral state that a life without happiness is quite possible, and all noble beings have become virtuous by renunciation. Mill objects that if happiness is defined as moments of rapture, â€Å"in an existence made up of few and transitory pains† and not as a â€Å"continuity of highly pleasurable excitement† happiness is quite attainable. The only reason why mankind is not yet in this condition of happiness is because our education and our social arrangements are inadequate. Concerning the objection that virtuous men renounced happiness Mill asserts that those noble men acted as martyrs, sacrificing their own happiness in order to increase the happiness of other people. However, such a sacrifice is not in itself an act of good but only insofar as it helps others. Mill presents a couple of other misapprehensions of utilitarian ethics, which he says are obviously wrong but which many people nevertheless believe. First, utilitarianism is often accused to be godless, because its foundation is human happiness, and not the will of god. But if we assume that god desires in the first instance the happiness of his creatures, then utilitarianism is more profoundly religious than any other doctrine. Another objection holds that there is not enough time to outweigh the effects on the general happiness prior to every action taken. Mill replies that such a claim also implies that if our conduct is guided by Christianity we’d have to read the Old and New Testament every time before we act. Obviously this is not possible. Instead he asserts that we had the entire duration of human existence to learn by experience which actions lead to certain results. The last critique Mill responds to is that utilitarianism legitimates immoral tendencies by justifying the break of rules by referring to an increase of utility. He replies that this problem can not only be found in utilitarianism but also in every other creed. Does this argument really dispel misconceptions about utilitarianism? In the beginning of chapter three Mill asserts that every moral philosophy needs some source of obligation in order to be binding. Regarding utilitarianism this binding force consists of internal and external sanctions. External sanctions include â€Å"the hope of favour and the fear of displeasure from our fellow creatures or from the Ruler of the Universe†. Internal sanctions on the other hand, are feelings in our own conscience and create a pain if we violate duty. This second type of sanction is considered to be more powerful. Thus to provide a force which is binding enough to influence people’s conduct, utilitarianism needs to appeal to people’s inner sentiment. Mill claims that in fact every moral sentiment could be cultivated, no matter how bad it is. However such â€Å"artificial† feelings, will eventually crumble when they are analyzed thoroughly. The utilitarian morality on the other hand, emerges as a particularly strong foundation because it’s consistent with the social nature of human sentiments: every one of us has an innate â€Å"desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures†. Mill finally emphasizes that this natural sentiment needs to be nourished through education and law. ——————————————– [ 1 ]. John Stuart, Mill, Utilitarianism, ed. Mary Waldrep (Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc. , 2007), 1. [ 2 ]. Mill, 6. [ 3 ]. Mill, 8. [ 4 ]. Mill, 11. [ 5 ]. Mill, 11. [ 6 ]. Mill, 24. [ 7 ]. Mill, 27.