Utilitarianism

“When we engage in a pursuit, a clear and precise conception of what we are pursuing would seem to be the first thing we need, instead of the last we are to look forward to. A test of right and wrong must be the means, one would think, of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and not a consequence of having already ascertained it.” 

Though the first principles of morality may remain unknown, there exist numerous moral codes and opinions about whether individual actions are “right or wrong.” For Mill, focusing on the “particular” without the presence of a general law is an absurd approach to the creation of a system of morals. Mill believes that instead, moral philosophers should first seek out the general law that undergirds all moral choices, which can then guide discussions about the morality of actions.

“Although the non-existence of an acknowledged first principle has made ethics not so much a guide as a consecration of man’s actual sentiments, still, as men’s sentiments, both of favour and of aversion, are greatly influenced by what they suppose to be the effects of things upon their happiness, the principle of utility, or as Bentham latterly called it, the greatest-happiness principle, has had a large share in forming the moral doctrines even of those who most scornfully reject its authority.” 

Though most ethical codes proposed by moral philosophers lack a “first principle” or general law that influences their discussion, Mill argues that the “principle of utility,” which lies at the heart of the philosophy of utilitarianism, has influenced all discussions of morality. According to this principle, individuals act to increase their happiness and avoid pain. For Mill, this principle is indispensable for any discussion of morality, even for those philosophers who otherwise critique utilitarianism.

“To suppose that life has (as they express it) no higher end than pleasure–no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit–they designate as utterly mean and grovelling; as a doctrine worthy of swine…”

In this quote, Mill describes one of the major criticisms of utilitarianism. For most critics, utilitarianism’s emphasis on pleasure as the basis of all moral action signifies a philosophy that is concerned with only the gratification of an individual’s basest instincts and temptations. Such philosophers fear that utilitarianism is a philosophy of hedonism, which will lead to individuals acting no better than animals.

“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, is 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 responds to the claims that utilitarianism is hedonism by stating that human beings are capable of experiencing higher forms of pleasure than animals. Mill believes that any individual who has the ability to experience such high forms of pleasure would rather live a life in pursuit of them, rather than succumb to their basest instincts and live animals. 

“It is noble to be capable of resigning entirely one’s own portion of happiness, or chances of it; but, after all, this self-sacrifice must be for some end; it is not its own end; and if we are told that its end is not happiness, but virtue, which is better than happiness, I ask, would the sacrifice be made if the hero or martyr did not believe that it would earn for others immunity from similar sacrifices?” 

Another argument made by critics of utilitarianism is that individuals will often live in pursuit of virtue, rather than in the pursuit of their own happiness or pleasure. While Mill acknowledges that such individuals exist, he argues that their “self-sacrifice” improves the happiness of society as a whole. Mill believes that acts of virtue or self-sacrifice for its own purpose are meaningless and foolish. 

“The internal sanction of duty, whatever our standard of duty may be, is one and the same–a feeling in our own mind; a pain, more or less intense, attendant on violation of duty, which in properly cultivated moral natures rises, in the more serious cases, into shrinking from it as an impossibility.” 

In Chapter 3, Mill explores why humans feel obligated to follow a moral code–whether that code be utilitarianism or another proposed system of ethics. For Mill, one of the main mechanisms by which humans are obligated to behave morally concerns internal sanctions, which Mill describes as “the essence of Conscience” (141). Conscience exists as an intense and painful feeling that arises whenever humans contemplate actions and prevent immoral actions. 

“This firm foundation is that of social feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures, which is already a powerful principle in human nature, and happily one of those which tend to become stronger, even without express inculcation, from the influences of advancing civilization.” 

According to Mill, utilitarianism differs from other proposed moral codes due to the fact that it has its foundation in humankind’s inherent nature, which is based upon a desire for social interaction. Humans are naturally inclined to create communities, as group cooperation helps humans to achieve certain goals which they would otherwise be unable to accomplish. Mill believes that the desire for community encourages behavior according to the utilitarian principle.

“If we now suppose this feeling of unity to be taught as a religion, and the whole force of education, of institutions, and of opinion, directed as it once was in the case of religion, to make every person grow up from infancy surrounded on all sides both by the profession and by the practice of it, I think that no one, who can realize this conception, will feel any misgiving about the sufficiency of the ultimate sanction for the Happiness morality.” 

While Mill asserts the “feeling of unity” at the heart of his moral system, he concedes that not every single individual is naturally concerned with the well-being of his or her fellow individuals. This lack of social connection may lead numerous individuals to behave immorally, especially in the absence of any other moral code (such as religion). Mill believes that religious education could be replaced with schools that teach utilitarian thoughts and principles, which Mill believes would lead to a society that naturally behaves according to utilitarianism. 

“No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness.”

Throughout “Utilitarianism,” Mill argues that the principle of utility cannot be proven in a traditional way because at the core of utilitarianism is the idea that individuals act to achieve happiness. Mill claims that it is impossible to prove that happiness is a desirable good, beyond the demonstration that people desire happiness in everyday life. 

“The ingredients of happiness are very various, and each of them is desirable in itself, and not merely when considered as swelling an aggregate.”

In this passage, Mill responds to critics of utilitarianism who claim that individuals may act in pursuit of virtue, not happiness, as an ultimate end. While Mill admits that such individuals do exist, he argues that they only pursue virtue in and of itself due to the fact that virtue has become a form of happiness for these individuals. As such, these individuals are pursuing their own source of happiness, which will differ for each and every individual. 

“How can the will to be virtuous, where it does not exist in sufficient force, be implanted or awakened? Only by making the person desire virtue–by making him think of it in a pleasurable light, or of its absence in a painful one.” 

Some critics of utilitarianism claim that individuals often act in response to their will rather than to their desire. While Mill concedes that will is often separate from desire, he argues that desire is will’s “parent stock.” If people will themselves to act in a virtuous way, their behavior reflects that they have been taught to see virtue as something desirable. As such, will is only a subset of desire, and its existence does not contradict the principle of utility.

“Among these diversities of opinion, it seems to be universally admitted that there may be unjust laws, and that law, consequently, is not the ultimate criterion of justice, but may give to one person a benefit, or impose on another an evil, which justice condemns.” 

Mill defines justice in relation to the law, writing that humans view actions as unjust when they deprive someone of their legal rights. However, Mill notes that the law itself can sometimes be assumed to be unjust and that justice can refer to situations which are not stipulated in the legal code. As such, Mill argues that justice is less about the existing laws than it is about protecting someone’s moral rights.

“But in [the notion of equality], still more than in any other case, the notion of justice varies in different persons, and always conforms in its variations to their notion of utility. Each person maintains that equality is the dictate of justice, except where he thinks that expediency requires inequality.” 

Though justice is often perceived as connected to equality, Mill notes that many seemingly just societies often treat different classes of people unequally. As an example, Mill brings up societies that force people to be enslaved, where enslaved people have very different rights than their masters. Mill believes that such different notions of justice show how justice often fails to provide an exact notion of a moral code in the way that utilitarianism does.