In Mills discussion in Utilitarianism, more specifically in chapter three, entitled, ‘Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility,’ he develops his argument on the theory of morality and sanctions as they correlate with utilitarian standards and implications of a person’s actions. In terms of Utilitarian rule, George would be following it closely, by acting in the interest of the greatest happiness in taking the job; this action though, according to Mill, would be the wrong action, for he articulates that the internal sanctions are the ultimate sanctions. The internal sanction of duty, as Mill explains it, is articulated on page 28 as such:
“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. This feeling…is the essence of conscience.”
Mill’s claim, thus is that one must always act according to one’s internal sanctions, to one’s morals and conscience. His view then, in this instance of George taking the job at the laboratory, presents a challenge to the utilitarian law of greatest happiness in utility of actions. If George was to act in accordance with his internal sanctions, morals, and conscience than he would not take the job, and provide not for his family, only allowing himself to selfishly bask in the satisfaction of his personal ‘morality.’ In not taking the job, and acting in the interest of his internal sanctions, his action reduces his own discomfort which he would have experienced had he taken the job, but increases the pain experienced by others affected by this action. Thus Mill’s argument for acting in accordance with internal sanctions conflicts with the fundamental basis of utilitarianism to act not for self-interest but for the happiness of others. For utilitarianism argues, according to Mill in chapter 2, that the foundation of morals, utility of action 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…pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.” (p.7)
Utilitarianism argues that actions are right only if they increase happiness and reduce pain, not merely in terms of one’s personal happiness and pain, but the amelioration of happiness and reduction of pain as they correspond to greatest amount of people; “happiness [is] considered as the directive rule of human conduct…not the agent’s own happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether.” (p11) By taking the job at the laboratory, though, the only person that would ultimately be affected by the reduction of happiness, is George; the amount of potential people that would suffer from the production of these weapons by the use of them, and the amount of their suffering, will not be affected negatively by George’s acceptance of the job. If anything, they will be aided in his action, because by taking the job, it is no longer available for the person who would have been more enthusiastic, and thus would have worked harder toward the production of the weapons.
In response to my criticism, I believe that Mill would argue that, in contrast, that by George declining the job, he will be doing his part in contributing to the greatest happiness principle, for he cannot base his actions on those of others—just because the job may be taken by someone else, one cannot depend on the action of others for their own decisions. Mill would thus think that, by George taking the job, he would be acting not for the greater good, and thus not in the utilitarian rule of conduct. But, since an action, according to utilitarianism, should only be regarded as the end result, not the motives or intentions, if George were to decline the job, this action would be expedient in that it would in the end result merely be having acted in his own interest—for no one other than himself would benefit. The millions of people that would be subject to unhappiness, pain, and suffering, if the weapons were used by the government, would be subject to the same unhappiness, pain, and suffering regardless of whether George or someone else were to have filled the position at the lab.
Mill’s response to my criticism, thus, is inadequate. His argument does not hold up in this example of a moral dilemma, for it is Mill’s belief that actions should be preformed in accordance with one’s internal sanctions and conscience. This assumption is generally one that would follow the utilitarian principle of acting for the greatest happiness of society because morality, Mill argues, is not innate but acquired and thus would fall in line with the morality of society as it is displayed by external sanctions. While I believe that in looking at this dilemma without considering the moral code of Utilitarianism, most of society would choose not to take the job, as they would only consider their action as one that would be contributing to the destruction and death of many, but they would thus fail to acknowledge that unless in some unusual circumstance of a boycott of such production of weapons, the production would continue regardless of their involvement.
Therefore, George should make the decision of his action objectively—considering what he ought to do in terms of the actual external end result, disregarding his own beliefs—and thus realize that his acceptance of the job at the biochemical weapon lab would not, in itself, cause suffering and pain of anyone (other than himself, potentially), but rather increase the happiness of his family and other dependents. Mill’s claims in accordance with this moral dilemma do not hold up, and in fact contradict what the utilitarian code of conduct implies that George should do. If George were to pursue his own pleasure, or lack of discomfort, in not taking the job, his family would lack the pleasure he enjoys; rather, if he chose to take the job, in rejecting his own happiness, he would be allowing the future happiness of his family. “Follow pleasure, and then will pleasure flee; flee pleasure, and pleasure will follow thee.” (John Heywood)
Plato. "Human Nature." The Daily Muse 24 Dec. 2003, Issue 10. The Classics Network.
30 Nov. 2004 <http://classicsnetwork.com/dailymuse/issue.asp?ID=10>.
Heywood , John. "Human Nature." The Daily Muse 13 Oct. 2004, Issue 219. The Classics Network. 30
Nov. 2004 <http://www.classicsnetwork.com/dailymuse/issue.asp?ID=219>.