John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism and Pleasure - Essay Example

? John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism and Pleasure Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction Utilitarianism: Pleasure & Morality 2 Utilitarianism: A “doctrine worthy only of swine” 3 The Experience of Pleasure in Morality and Ideals 5 Sources Cited 7 Introduction Utilitarianism is often summarized as “the greatest good for the greatest number” being used to calculate the moral correctness of an action, decision, or policy for both individuals and society on a common standard. Utilitarianism ideally judges actions based upon their outcome in producing the greatest happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people, and therefore the ‘utility’ of an action can be calculated through its use in the production of the social good. Utilitarianism as a guide to personal behavior can relate to both personal experiences of happiness or pleasure as a guide to conduct and a recognition of the greater good of society as a higher motivation for service. Consequently, the basis for moral action is described in Utilitarianism for both the individual and society. Utilitarianism, as posited by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) historically, has been criticized as being a “doctrine worthy only of swine,” because critics concluded that using pleasure or personal happiness as a criteria for universal morality would inevitably lead to selfishness, greed, base behaviour, and libertinism. However, what Mill’s reformation of Bentham’s theory clearly establishes is that humans can take happiness, pleasure, and joy from higher morality, ideals, and shared achievement in a way that equates Utilitarianism with a progressive and evolutionary vision leading to a better future for all humanity. Utilitarianism: Pleasure & Morality One of the major ways that Bentham and Mill differed in their theory of Utilitarianism is that Bentham based his definition of ‘the good’ in a limited formulation of pleasure and pain that defined happiness objectively through the individual, but tended to reduce Utilitarianism to the principles of hedonism, while Mill based his definition of Utilitarianism in a conceptually expanded view of happiness that included societal ideals, virtues, and altruistic beliefs of human activity in order to represent ‘the greater good’ in a wider manner. (Driver, 2009) Another difference is that Bentham is regarded retrospectively as proposing “Act Utilitarianism” whereas Mill was an advocate of “Rule Utilitarianism”. (Lotito, 2002) Act Utilitarianism applies logic and reasoning to each individual and collective activity in order to determine through direct cognition, moral reasoning, and reflection whether or not the activity serves the happiness of the greatest number of people. Rule Utilitarianism seeks to establish predetermined rules of order related to moral reasoning that can be applied by the individual or groups in making decisions that operate on their own fundamentals of interpretation according to utilitarian logic and can be further discussed, verified, or formally accepted by the society as policies, laws, or collective standards. In this manner, Utilitarianism gives expression to the depth of human experience, in the diversity of individual opinions, characters, and goals under a common standard of morality. Utilitarianism: A “doctrine worthy only of swine” The basis of happiness in Utilitarianism is pleasure and pain, making it a philosophy that can be extended to other humans, species, or sentient beings as a fundamental or universal motivation. (Driver, 2009) Bentham is seeking to base morality in science through building pleasure and pain into universal motivations related to happiness that govern the system of moral reasoning in both the individual and society. The good is defined through the experiences of the individual in feelings of pleasure and the existential equivalent of evil is pain as experienced in the individual subjectively. Expanded from the individual to society, Bentham’s Utilitarianism could define the social good in quantitative terms, and therefore what was good collectively could be defined in terms of its utility in increasing the social welfare for the greatest number of people objectively. Historically, Bentham’s liberation of morality from religious authority and grounding it in scientific principle of operation (utility) is important, but his defining of the good through pleasure and absence of pain left Utilitarianism open to the criticism that it was a “doctrine worthy only of swine” because critics felt that pleasure would only be experienced or valued in the sense of vice, addictions, or other base desires. This opened Utilitarianism to the reformulation that Mill would undertake in his exposition of the theory. Rather than being content with the hedonistic, reductionist view of pleasure and pain as Bentham proposed it relating to good and evil, Mill saw higher feelings of happiness related to altruistic concerns as the foundation of the good in humanity and reorganized Utilitarianism as a theory around this expanded or reformed view of morality. Happiness deriving from ideals, virtues, and altruism represents a broader basis for defining the good, but is still subjective and relative to individuals and groups. Mill’s Utilitarianism did not dispute the varied nature of individual experiences of happiness, but rather used virtue as a more developed way of experiencing pleasure in the calculus of moral reasoning. In ‘Utilitarianism’(1863), John Stuart Mill defines the relationship between happiness and virtue as reliant on the pleasure-pain dynamic, but also transcending it through higher values. He wrote, “There is in reality nothing desired except happiness. Whatever is desired otherwise than as a means to some end beyond itself, and ultimately to happiness, is desired as itself a part of happiness, and is not desired for itself until it has become so. Those who desire virtue for its own sake, desire it either because the consciousness of it is a pleasure, or because the consciousness of being without it is a pain, or for both reasons united; as in truth the pleasure and pain seldom exist separately, but almost always together...” (Mill, 1867) If various individuals experience or define happiness differently, then democratic principles of governance could be used to determine the social standing of the position objectively in both Bentham and Mill’s formation of Utilitarianism. In this manner, Utilitarianism is easily associated with the growing movement of democracy in Europe and internationally, as related to the development of Enlightenment thought, as it recognized multiple and varying moral definitions in society but approached them quantitatively when determining the general welfare. Mill’s Utilitarianism also dealt with the principles of both scientific and democratic law, to be further used as a ground in legal judgment. The Experience of Pleasure in Morality and Ideals Because of these differences, historians of philosophy have classified Bentham as an “Act Utilitarian” and Mill as a “Rule Utilitarian”. (Driver, 2009) In this context, it is easier to understand and evaluate criticisms of Bentham for being a “pleasure seeker” or hedonist as charged by his contemporaries. The hedonist values pleasure as the highest good, yet in doing so can easily define and justify an individual or collective path of immorality by catering to the base desires and sense pleasures in life that lead to debauchery, selfishness, or excessive behavior. Mill’s rule utilitarianism is more acceptable to virtue-governed moral reasoning in a democratic society and avoids the pitfalls of self-indulgence as a logic trap in Utilitarian theory. Because happiness can be rooted in higher idealism both individually and collectively, virtues can also be applied as rules in a systemic moral philosophy such as Utilitarianism. Mill addresses the criticisms of Bentham that saw Utilitarianism as leading to hedonistic reduction by establishing the pleasure-pain experience as related to higher moral reasoning in virtues. However, both act and rule Utilitarianism can be criticized for objectifying the subjective bias of the individual or groups as universal through majority rule in authoritative decisions relating to morality in social legislation, even though both try to avoid this in advocating moral operational systems in individuals that can oppose mainstream values through protest, resistance, and other methods of social reform of collective values. Conclusion The different views of human nature that are found in the Utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill are distinguished by the relation of virtue, guilt, and conscience primarily as motivators or governing agents of consciousness and society. From this, Bentham’s theory of human nature is more aligned with the theory of natural law which views a primordial freedom of thought and action as definitive of being in the world. Mill’s exposition of Utilitarianism mediates the universals of natural law to be in accordance with the compromises necessitated by society and democratic governance. Mill’s theory can be viewed as the more mature and extensive system which describes the complexities of human motivations in higher idealism through their own consequences without over-reducing the issues to hedonism. Without the awareness of the power of virtue, guilt, and conscience to govern behavior and define the good in ways contrary to self interest, the full range of human experience and motivation is not expressed in the philosophy. From this it can be seen that Mill’s reformulation of Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism was actually required by the limitations of the construct as expressed in the pleasure-pain duality, otherwise it would have remained a “doctrine worthy only of swine” if it were not shown how the higher ideals and morality of humanity are embodied in a greater sense of happiness than the desire-driven experiences of pleasure. Sources Cited Bentham, Jeremy (1823). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation, Volume 2. Printed for W. Pickering, 1823. Web, viewed10/2/2011. Driver, Julia (2009). The History of Utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Mar 27, 2009. Web, viewed 10/2/2011. Simon Larsen (2011). UTILITARIANISM - CHURCH, ETHICS & SOCIETY, LESSON 5, Oslo International, 2011. Web, viewed 10/2/2011. Lotito, Christopher (2002). On the Utility of Bentham and Mill. Drew University, 2002. Web, viewed 10/2/2011. Mill, John Stuart (1863). Utilitarianism. From ‘Chapter 4 - Of what sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible’, Utilitarianism.net, 2011. Web, viewed 10/2/2011. Read More