A First Look at Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism has had its misunderstandings, those of which John Stuart Mill is trying to erase from the public in his book, surprisingly called, "Utilitarianism." Within his first two chapters, we are introduced to what utilitarianism is, and he starts with stating that "all action is for the sake of some end." How then do we decide if our action is right or wrong? He states that some claim we have a moral instinct telling us what is right or wrong, but firstly, we must have a standard to which our actions should be judged (sounds familiar). Therefore, Mill states that there must be "one fundamental principle or law at the root of all morality" because since our moral beliefs have changed little over time, there exists one standard, the standard of utility or the "greatest happiness principle." This is just the beginning of Mill's to come explanation and argument for utilitarianism.

To clear things up, Mill makes it clear that utilitarianism is not in opposition of pleasure, but in fact it is "pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain" and thus where the greatest happiness principle comes in and claims that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Meaning, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain and unhappiness is the deprivation of pleasure. This is important because Mill states that the only things desirable in the end, the only things inherently good are pleasure and the absence of pain. Utiliarianism also brings into account not only the quality of the end, but the quantity as well, which is why one of noble character, although the individual may not be exceedingly happy, it is a benefit for the community. Also, in regards to quality and quantity, certain pleasures, according to Mill, can be more valuable than others based on experiences. If people choose one pleasure over another even if that pleasure is accompanied by discomfort, then that first pleasure is more valuable than the second.

Happiness is also considered a sign of using our "higher facilities" (the ability to use logic whereas animals cannot) because people who have access to all pleasures will prefer the pleasure that appeal to their higher facilities. As Mill states it so eloquently, "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig dissatisfied; 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."

What struck me most about Mill was how he can claim certain pleasures are more valuable than others. It seems as though he is degraded other pleasures that cannot amount to the others. Yes, reading a book like "Great Expectations" would be mentally stimulating and pleasurable, but is it fair to compare that to eating a perfectly chocolately chocolate cake? Mill states that only those with broad experiences can say which is a higher quality, but then this goes against the idea of comparing things to one standard because instead, its a variety of different people with different ranges of experience. But also, what makes a pleasure more valuable than another? There was never a set comparison point, like its more educational, or more sensual?

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2001.