UTILITARIANISM OF JOHN STUART MILL

Generally, utilitarianism is understood as the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure or avoiding unhappiness or pain. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Utility has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure versus suffering or pain, although, preference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance which has the happiness or pleasure as of the ultimate importance. Utilitarianism can be characterized as a qualitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character) as well as with other varieties of consequentialsm.

Mill’s famous utilitarian statement can be found in Utilitarianism. His philosophy was influenced by Jeremy Bentham and his father James Mill. His famous formulation of utilitarianism is known as the “greatest happiness principle”. It holds that one must act so as to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. His major contribution to utilitarianism is his argument for the qualitative separation of pleasures. Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to physical forms of pleasures. He also distinguishes between happiness and contentment, claiming that the happiness is of higher value than contentment, a belief which is wittily encapsulated in the statement 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 and the pig are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.” Mill defines the difference between higher and lower forms of happiness with the principle that those who have experienced both tend to prefer one over the other.

Mill, in Utilitarianism, attempts to reply to the misconception about utilitarianism and thereby gives a new interpretation to the utility theory. He observed that many people misunderstood utilitarianism by interpreting utility as in opposition to pleasure. In reality, utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. Thus another name for utility is the “greatest happiness principle” this principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Happiness is the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. By happiness are intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. Pleasure and the absence of pain are, by this account, the only things desirable as ends in themselves, the only things inherently "good." Thus, any other circumstance, event, or experience is desirable only insofar as it is a source for such pleasure; actions are good when they lead to a higher level of general happiness, and bad when they decrease that level.

The next criticism which Mill tries to reply is that the utilitarian theory is accused of reducing the meaning of life to mere pleasures. To this Mill replies that human pleasures are much superior animalistic ones and once people are made aware of their higher faculties, they will never be happy to leave them uncultivated, thus happiness is a sign that we are exercising our higher faculties. When making a moral judgment on an action, utilitarianism thus takes into account not just the quantity, but also the quality of the pleasures resulting from it. Mill describes how to differentiate between higher and lower quality pleasures: A pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different pleasure even if it is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the other pleasure. Moreover, Mill contends, it is an unquestionable fact that, given equal access to all kinds of pleasures, people will prefer those that appeal to their higher faculties. A person will not choose to become an animal; an educated person will not choose to become ignorant, and so on. Even though a person who uses higher faculties often suffers more in life, he would never choose a lower existence, preferring instead to maintain his dignity.

Furthermore, Mill observes that even if the possession of a "noble character" brought less happiness to the individual, society would still benefit. Thus, because the greatest happiness principle considers the total amount of happiness, a noble character, even if it is less desirable for the individual, is still desirable by a utilitarian standard. Mill addresses the argument that the most virtuous people in history are those who have renounced their happiness. First of all, he admits that it is true that there are martyrs who gave up their happiness. However, he argues that martyrs must sacrifice their happiness for something greater end, and what could be that greater end? That greater end, as Mill tells, is nothing but the happiness of the other people. The core value of such sacrifice is the value of other’s happiness. This sacrifice is made intelligently and with full awareness. It is also made so that others do not have to make similar sacrifices. The person making the sacrifice does not look for his own happiness but for the happiness of the others. For example, a soldier risks his own happiness for the sake of the citizens. The preference utilitarians would say the frustration of the desires of the soldier may bring fulfillment of the desires of the large number of people. Therefore, his sacrifice is moral and he is a virtuous person.

Mill admits that the willingness to sacrifice one’s happiness for the sake of the happiness of the others is the highest virtue. However, while utilitarians value sacrificing one’s good for the good of others, they do not think that the sacrifice is in itself a good. It totally depends on the result of the sacrifice. It is a good insofar as it promotes happiness but it is not a good if it does not promote happiness. The utilitarian’s standard for judging an act does not take in to account the happiness of the agent alone but the happiness of all people. Thus a person must not value his own happiness over the happiness of the others but this does not mean that a person should not look for his own happiness. In most of the aspects of everyday life, a person does not affect a large number of other people, and thus need not consider his or her actions in relation to the good of all. It is only the people who work in the public sphere and affect many other people who must think about public utility on a regular basis.

Another criticism of utilitarianism is that it leaves people "cold and unsympathetic," as it is concerned solely with the consequences of people's actions, and not on the individuals as moral or immoral in themselves. First, Mill replies that if the criticism is that utilitarianism does not let the rightness or wrongness of an action be affected by the kind of person who performs the action, then this is a criticism of all morality. In other words, the concern is on the morality of the action performed by an individual and not the individual him or herself. All ethical standards judge actions in themselves, without considering the morality of those who performed them. However, he says that if the criticism is meant to imply that many utilitarians look on utilitarianism as an exclusive standard of morality, and fail to appreciate other desirable "beauties of character," then this is a valid critique of many utilitarians. He says that it is a mistake to only cultivate moral feelings, to the exclusion of the sympathies or artistic understandings, a mistake, moralists of all persuasions often make. However, he does say that if there is to be a mistake of priorities, it is preferable to err on the side of moral thinking.

Finally, we can conclude with some remarks saying that the main concern of Mill’s utilitarianism is the consequences of an action which makes it moral or immoral. Any action, which produces highest happiness of the highest number of people, is good and can be promoted. On the other hand, any action which produces unhappiness of the maximum number of people is wrong and can be eliminated. And also that one’s own happiness can be sacrificed for the sake of the happiness of the maximum people. It does not seem to take into account the personal happiness of the agent but of the others. This seems to say that killing a criminal brings maximum happiness of greatest number of people, the killing is good and it cannot be judged as immoral. But this shows the lack of respect for the human life and it violates the ‘right to life’ of the person killed. It also does not take into consideration the situations or circumstances which influence the action of a person. In other words, Mill does not take into account the individual’s motives in morality. By basing morality on the general good, utilitarianism fails to appreciate the importance of the individual. Mill also argues that sacrificing happiness is only desirable if it will lead to more happiness generally. He rejects the value of sacrifice in itself. However, many people do see value in an ascetic life, independent of the consequences it produces. This leads back to the most basic question about utilitarianism: Is the greatest happiness principle the ultimate foundation of morality? This question remains unanswered forever.

Bibliography:
Sher, George., ed. John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1979