Mills Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Human nature had always been therefore not easy to comprehend. Over a period of time philosophers have tried to simplify the issue so as to understand the basis on which human beings had been behaving or should behave. However, time and again they had experienced that the issue confronting them is not simple for which a single answer can be found. Resultantly, they steered their thoughts to make their "simple explanations" more comprehensive, trying to engulf the entire complexity of human existence with effects of surroundings, nature within and without and myriads of other factors. Net result is that they finally land into complex explanations of human behavior or requirements of behavior; the very same place which they tried to avoid in the first instance. One thing which we should have learned by now during our philosophical journey is that we have to have a theory of human behavior which should be able to address the diversity of human environments and thus cannot be very simple and rigid. Utilitarianism is a step in that direction. Utilitarianism The founder of Utilitarianism was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). His theory begins with proposition that nature has placed human beings under two masters: pleasure and pain. Anything that seems good must either be directly pleasurable, or thought to be a means to pleasure or to the avoidance of pain. Conversely, anything that seems bad must either be directly painful, or thought to be a means to pain or to the deprivation of pleasure. From this Bentham argued that the words right and wrong can only be meaningful if they are used in accordance with the Utilitarian principle, so that whatever increases the net surplus of pleasure over pain is right and whatever decreases it is wrong. Moreover, the net pain and pleasure to be considered is not restricted to personal level but should be the sum of the pleasure of all involved by acting or getting effected by a particular action. Therefore from utilitarianism we cannot gauge the utility of action by putting it on the personal criteria of pleasure and pain but it has to be more wholesome resultantly more complex but practicable. Basic Objections to Utilitarianism Most difficult part in the implementation of Bentham's utilitarianism is that to take an action, one has to take into account the expanse of the effects of the actions i.e. how far the consequences going to travel. This factor leads to three basic objections to utilitarianism:- 1. Utilitarianism is too demanding as it is more inclined towards collective good than individual good. 2. Utilitarianism is a heartless doctrine as it does not concentrate/focus on the intention but on the consequences thus making the entire concept of virtuous intent redundant. 3. The Principle of Utility is impractical because one has to think the consequences for which the time and information might not be available at a particular moment. Mill's Modification to Utilitarianism These basic objections though seem valid were addressed by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The salient points of his modification to utilitarianism were:- 1. Introduction of Higher and Lower Pleasure Mill is of the opinion that pleasure has to be distributed into categories of higher and lower pleasure. At times we may confront a situation that we find a number of actions which might lead to "pleasure". In such circumstances we would be at a loss to decide the course of action. It will be only the conception of higher and lower pleasure which will give us the ability to take correct actions at correct time. In doing so we should also consider that the most suitably equipped person to judge the distinction between the higher and lower pleasure is the one who has experienced both. 2. Introduction of Rules in Moral Decision Making Mill considers that rules can be the force behind the decision. These rules are in fact the outcome of utilitarianism and they are established by taking into consideration principles of utility i.e. rules which had been giving and will give "pleasure" to the maximum. Since these rules are derived from the principle of utilitarianism they are called "secondary principle". They can be employed in decision making as a short circuiting of cause and effect matrix of utilitarianism. Basic Objections Addressed by Mill through Modification With the above mentioned two modifications Mill addressed the basic objections as follows:- 1. Utilitarianism is too demanding By introducing the higher and lower pleasure concept Mill addressed this objection on utilitarianism. Higher and lower pleasure can only be segregated if the scale of measuring pleasure takes into account the quality and quantity of pleasure. If one is convinced and assign the quality and quantity scale to happiness than one is convinced of the action he is going to take. Therefore such an appreciation / classification of pleasure will definitely lead to the categorization of pleasure attained in actions done for the good of many as higher pleasure, and the one which is done for oneself at the cost of the pain for many, which though falling in the category of pleasure, but will automatically be in the category of lower pleasure. Some sceptic might argue that an individual might categorize his pleasure as "higher" than the pleasure of many. We should then refer to the other modification of Mill i.e. "Introduction of rules in Moral Decision Making". As a general rule derived from the utility is that "good begets good" therefore we should do good to get good from others. Doing good which does no or less good to others will eventually affect oneself. Therefore, in end if we think that doing good for others will give us more pleasure or the good we do to others will eventually come to us then the charge on utilitarianism of being too demanding is diffused. 2. Utilitarianism is a heartless doctrine Mill is of the opinion that this objection does not require even any modification in the utilitarianism. We can conveniently see that according to utilitarianism if the actions are to be directed according to the end and we want end to be pleasurable then intent is automatically "virtuous". In short, in utilitarianism "virtuous intent" is by default as it is manifested in actions whereas in other moral theories it has to be by design as it may or may not manifest itself with action. This indicates the practical approach of utilitarianism. 3. The Principle of Utility is impractical Here we would like to refer to the principle of rules inducted by Mill in utilitarianism. As a rule every one has his influence in a particular sphere according to the status he enjoys in a society. A mayor of city has to assess his actions in different perspective than a shop keeper. Their level of influence of action will be different. As a matter of principle we should be concerned about our sphere of influence and if we can generate good in our sphere we are contributing towards the good as a whole. Therefore, by limiting ourselves to our actions and our areas of influence we are making the principle of utility and in turn utilitarianism practical. Having understood Mill's utilitarianism it is now prudent to delve into William's Objection to see its validity. Williams's Objection William's objection is that "the demands of the principle of utility sometimes conflict with the demands of justice. In those cases utilitarianism requires of us to perform an unjust act. This provides us with a good reason to reject utilitarianism." The situation on the basis of which the objection is raised by William was as follows:- You are walking through a forest somewhere in South America, when you happen upon a clearing. In the clearing you see a group of 10 frightened villagers standing before a firing squad. The leader of the firing squad - Pedro - comes over to you and tells you the following: "It is a wondrous occasion to have an esteemed visitor here today, and to mark that occasion I am offering you the opportunity to save the lives of nine of these peasants. All you need to do is take a rifle and shoot one peasant of your choosing, and I shall let the others go free." According to William if you are following utilitarianism school of thought you would kill one person and let the other nine free which is conflicting with the demand of justice. In actual by depicting this situation Williams has raised two of the objections, discussed above, on utilitarianism again like:- 1. Utilitarianism is a heartless doctrine as it allows killing of one man at the cost of nine. 2. Principle of utility is impractical as it clash with the demands of justice. Mills Response To start with we try to address the above situation with the modifications introduced by Mill to utilitarianism which had been discussed above. If we take into consideration the principle of higher and lower pleasure or conversely higher and lower pain then killing one person would cause less pain then killing all ten or we can say that leaving 9 persons would give more pleasure then killing all ten. On the other hand the "secondary rule" principle introduced by Mill give us two different responses. If we consider the principle in context that "killing is bad" then killing of one person is as bad as killing ten. However, if we consider this situation from another angle that "which would be more painful killing of ten persons or killing of one person" then the answer would definitely be killing of ten persons. It is the perspective which makes the difference. In one case it is academic in nature and leads us to equate killing of one and ten as equal loss where as in other case the context is practical in nature which leads us to equate killing of ten persons more loss than killing of one. Since Mill's first modification leads us to killing of one person at the cost of nine whereas the second modification may or may not lead us to the same conclusion, in sum we can say that Mill's utilitarianism will lead us to kill one person at cost of nine therefore validating William's objection. But would it be justified to deduce Mill response by putting utilitarianism to test but not the "concept of justice". To do so we have to see what Mill thinks about justice. Mill observes that justice is flexible and rigid at the same time. For flexibility he cites that: "Not only have different nations and individuals different notions of justice, but in the mind of one and the same individual, justice is not some one rule, principle, or maxim, but many, which do not always coincide in their dictates, and in choosing between which he is guided either by some extraneous standard, or by his own personal predilections. (p. 51)". To highlight the rigidity of justice he adds "Justice is a name for certain classes of moral rules, which concern the essentials of human well-being more nearly, and are therefore of more absolute obligation, than any other rules for the guidance of life; and the notion which we have found to be of the essence of the idea of justice, that of a right residing in an individual, implies and testifies to this more binding obligation. (p. 55)". In both cases Mill tries to point out the closeness of utilitarianism with justice. In case we take the flexibility part of justice we see that justice is not one rule or maxim but is guided by dictates influenced by extraneous standards or personal predilections which will be definitely benefiting the person going through the process i.e. considering his "principle of utility", not very far from "utilitarianism"! As regarding the statement of rigidity of justice it says that "justice is a name for certain classes of moral rules, which concern the essentials of human well-being more nearly and are therefore of more absolute obligation", as in utilitarianism the effort is to do actions which are good for more (concern the essentials of human well being) and while doing so one may have to give up personal interest (more absolute obligation). Again too close to utilitarianism. Then how come William objected utilitarianism on the basis of not fulfilling justice. In fact, the deduction is made from a hypothetical case in which it has been assumed that it is unjust to kill one person. But following points are to be considered before we really assess the clash of justice and utilitarianism, especially in the Pedro example:- 1. Was the killing of ten villagers according to Justice 2. If yes, how come there was a choice of killing one and leaving nine Does it show the flexibility of justice 3. If no to question 1, then the objection dies its natural death since justice is eradicated from the scene altogether. 4. If all villagers are to be taken as sinners worth dying and it is seen as benefit (justice) for the society that all must die than according to utilitarianism also they all must die as their death will amount to net pleasure for society and utilitarianism in this case will not lead us to killing of one at cost of nine. 5. If the situation is reverse as given in point 4 above than justice has faltered and ordered ten killing where as utilitarianism is toning down the fault and killing one, no sage is required to think which option is more "just" The above questions / points indicate clearly that to analyze a concept through a situation which has not been bracketed with pre and post circumstances will lead to wrong conclusion. In short justice and utilitarianism do not contradict instead reinforce each other. My View Point I agree with Mill's point of view. My reasons are:- 1. Utilitarianism is a flexible real world moral guide. 2. It has the flexibility to absorb and guide recent trends. 3. It does not go against the normal concept of justice. 4. It can help in application of justice; in actual it already had been doing so. 5. The situation used by William is contextually vague as already been discussed in the paper. 6. If for a time being we suppose that all the people are believers of William's "justice" and given a choice that they select one person to die would they able to get an answer I think no. On the other hand if we suppose that all the people are believers of Mills' utilitarianism would such a question lead to a volunteer Probably yes. Soldiers and people had been sacrificing their lives for the well being of their country men, aren't they Utilitarianism seems to get better resolution of complex problem then "Williams's concept of justice". Words 2464 Read More