John Mills Utilitarianism - Essay Example

JS Mill Mill said, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Outline the view here; assess in detail one objection to this view John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was the son of James Mill, British historian and scholar, and the godson of Jeremy Bentham. It was but natural that the mantle of (able) Advocate for Utilitarianism should fall on his shoulders. He was, in fact, meticulously groomed by his father and Bentham to carry on the Utilitarian tradition after them. Utilitarianism states that the ethicality of an action depends solely on whether it increases overall utility or not. Therefore, Utilitarianism is consequentialism - the morality of an action depended on its outcome, and on nothing else. Utility is happiness or pleasure, and suffering is disutility. Elements of the doctrine of Utilitarianism can be traced back to the Greek philosopher, Epicurus, although Jeremy Bentham is generally credited as the original propounder of this doctrine. "Nature", said Bentham, "has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think..." (Bentham, 1789, Ch I, p 1) Whatever brought the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people was good, according to Bentham. And this was the starting point for John Mill, in his Utilitarianism. First, let us look at the theory as expounded by Mill, and then follow it up by an examination of its validity. Mill stated that "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, 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." (Mill ch 2). Anything that is pleasurable in itself, or increases the possibility of pleasure and reduces that of pain, is desirable Mill clarifies what he, and other Utilitarians before him, means by the terms 'Utilitarian', 'pleasure' and 'pain'. Pleasure does not mean pleasure only in its "grossest form" (Mill Ch 2). He anticipates the criticism that his theory is likely to attract, stating that people may not agree that humans are only interested in the pursuit of pleasure, and are therefore no better than swine. He shrugs off criticism by stating that a misrepresentation of the meaning of the word 'pleasure' is due to the common assumption that humans are capable of wanting no higher pleasures than those sought by swine, and not due to an erroneous definition of the word by the Utilitarians. He acknowledges the fact that Epicurus, in his time had faced the same criticism, which the current advocates of Utilitarianism face. Apart from quantity, utility or pleasure differed in quality as well. Some pleasures were of a higher or more refined nature like the "pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments." (Mill, Ch 2). How does one distinguish a more valuable pleasure from a less valuable one This is done by the simple expedient of checking with people. If a greater number of persons rate one type of pleasure at a higher level than another type of pleasure, then the former pleasure is qualitatively better than the latter. Mill argues that a human being, because of his powers of discrimination desires pleasures of a different kind than animals, and is therefore not easily satisfied. By his very nature he may be susceptible to more suffering than animals. However, no human being, would like to give up his human form to become animal, so that he is assured of greater pleasure - of the animal variety. This in itself speaks of a human being's yearning for a life of meaning, and not one given merely to pleasure of a gross variety. A human being, with all his imperfections seeks humanness rather than animal-ness. "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, are 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."(!) (Mill ch 2) Mill concedes that people often gave up higher pleasures for the lower; and that older persons do not retain the enthusiasm and idealism that they had in their youth for the higher life. This only meant that they had got into a habit of doing things in a certain way, and did not know how to get back. But it did not mean that they were not aware of what constituted a higher action or pleasure. Pleasure should be computed on the basis of overall pleasure. A noble person by his actions could increase pleasure for others. Even if it were argued that such a person got no pleasure by the act of giving others pleasure by denying (or not denying) himself something, yet his action increased overall satisfaction. If society were to consist totally of noble persons, then total happiness would be maximized by the combined actions of these persons. My personal happiness would depend on the nobility of others, and the happiness of each person would depend on the nobility of each of the others. Thus, a martyr's sacrifice is explained by the fact that his act of voluntarily sacrificing himself, is not sacrifice for its own sake, but an act undertaken to ensure that others do not have to suffer. Thus it increases the overall pleasure and reduces pain. Mill says that the whole of society should act for its welfare in a "disinterested" manner. He claims that the standard set by Utilitarianism is high, and those who criticize it do so because it sets a high standard of behavior. He surprisingly adds that the "motive has nothing to do with the morality of the actionHe 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."(Mill ch 2) As a matter of fact, most actions that a person does affects only himself, and have very little to do with public benefit or detriment. It is possible that a person does an action that is expedient in the short run (saying a lie) but since a habit of telling lies ultimately affects the fabric of society, telling a lie is not advocated by Utilitarians; even a lie unintentionally and inadvertently uttered is not acceptable. However in circumstances like withholding information to a malefactor, or keeping away the bad news from someone who is terminally ill, Utilitarianism favors telling a lie. To the objection of the impossibility of computing quantity of pleasure/ pain, Mill replies that just as we do not rush to read the Bible every time we debate on a course of action, yet know which is the right action to take, similarly, we do not need complicated computations of utility. We know by our previous experience which action maximizes utility. Mill seems to be a bit confused here. If we know which action maximized utility, how do we explain the fact that so many troublesome acts are done by good intentioned meddlers Mill states that to assume that Utilitarianism is against the cultivation of virtue is wrong. He then adds that the sole reason for being virtuous is that being virtuous increases the feeling of well-being (pleasure). So virtue is also subject to the pleasure-pain principle. He also accepts the fact that the pleasure-pain principle has no proof; this inability to be proved is in the intrinsic nature of first principles. (Mill ch 4) Mill's theory has evoked quite some criticism. If utility (pleasure) were to be computed how was one to do it Since pleasure and pain were subjective concepts how does one compare one person's pleasure (pain) to another's How about perverts A pervert might get pleasure from pain (self-inflicted or inflicting pain on others). In such instances when even the definition of pain and pleasure is not very clear (pain is pleasure and vice versa), Utilitarians would end up tearing their hair out (would the act give pain or pleasure!) trying to compute utility. If morality consists in promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest numbers, then the majority rules, and the minority suffers. Let's look at the case of a human being in the prime of his life. If all his organs (eyes, kidney, liver, heart and so on) are harvested and transplanted into many other persons who need organs, then putting to death one human, can give life to several others. Utilitarianism would support this bizarre act. Certainly not morally justifiable! Take any action that is done with total good intent, but results in a negative conclusion. If I give a sandwich to a starving man, and the sandwich contains, unknown to me, contaminated filling, I am committing a morally reprehensible act. Were I to be punished for this, it would surely ensure that in future, I am not tempted to do any further good! The greatest danger in the Doctrine of Utilitarianism is the divorce between motive and action. Utilitarianism would not distinguish between murder and manslaughter! It is also impractical to assume that people could act in a purely disinterested fashion to do the right thing. The greatest danger of subscribing to the principle of Utilitarianism is that it gives power to a majority. This could lead to a complete elimination of minorities, and encourage a dull mediocrity. There are also sinister implications of this theory in serious social questions. For instance, in the case of capital punishment in America, statistics show that the majority on death row belong to cultural minorities and have less education; the majority of women in prison are lesbian. Should facts like these be ignored, because they clear the Utilitarian Principle of benefit to the majority Or shouldn't we try for reform The Utilitarian Principle attempts to give certain guidelines for human action. Its principal drawback is that it is too simplistic. We may conclude, in the words of Mill himself that "there exists no moral system under which there do not arise unequivocal cases of conflicting obligation. These are the real difficulties, the knotty points both in the theory of ethics, and in the conscientious guidance of personal conduct" (Mill ch 2) Works Cited Bentham, Jeremy The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) Mill, JS (edited Sher, George) Utilitarianism Read More