John Stuart Mill developed the principle by referring to qualitative rather than quantitative pleasure. Mill was concerned that Bentham’s theory was limited to the law and the lawmakers and primarily concerned with promoting pleasure. Thus he set about introducing a version of the theory of utility for the common person, which also substituted ‘pleasure’ for happiness “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” and moved from mere quantity to involving the quality of happiness as well. He argued that pleasures of the mind should take priority over physical pleasures and that, since basic human requirements for survival were fulfilled, a human being’s primary moral concerns should be for the higher order ‘goods’. He claimed: ‘it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’.
The fact that the principle of utility can be applied universally, to any situation also works in favour of this ethical theory. As too does the fact that it is relatively straightforward, constantly weighing up happiness and consequences. The Principle encourages a democratic approach in decision-making, which is also seen as an advantage. The majority’s interest is always considered and a dangerous minority is not allowed to dominate. However, everyone’s happiness is taken into consideration and for this reason it is observed that nobody’s happiness is more important than anyone else's.
The theory also appeals to theists as its principles are compatible with the teachings of Jesus, who preached an ethic of love, requiring men to work for the well being of others. ‘Do to others as you would have them do to you’. (Matt 7:12).
The fact that the principle rests on the evaluation of consequences is also viewed as an advantage. It is seen as more reasonable to judge a moral choice in view of its consequences, rather than only by personal preferences. Furthermore, it means that present circumstances can be judged without reference to past priority.
Nevertheless, the principle of utility has come under criticism from a number of different sources. For example, a number of philosophers have asked whether the utility principle is sufficient. The principle has also been criticised for being impractical. This is because the practical application of the theory requires the ability to predict the long-term consequences of an action but there is never any guarantee that circumstances will turn out exactly the same.
Utilitarianism can be further criticised for assuming that most people are good, this leads to evil being justified. For example, if a woman was jogging through a park and came across a gang of men who raped her. Utilitarianism justifies their actions as the men’s pleasure being far greater than the woman’s and, as they are the majority, the woman’s pain would not matter. Similarly the theory cannot be used to determine what is universally good. Under Bentham’s theory it would be possible to justify acts of sadism or torture, no matter how perverse the pleasure carried out. Mill’s principle does however go some way to addressing this weakness, however the theory has also been criticised for being too simplistic. The theory relies on a single principle by which we make moral decisions. However, we cannot solve every dilemma by reference to one ethical theory because every situation is unique in some way. Furthermore, values such as justice have no relevance, as the majority may not support that view and not every action done out of good will is going to result in good consequences.
The theory also makes no allowance for personal relationships, for example if a man’s wife were dying in a fire, reason would not tell him not to rescue a scientist with a cure for cancer first but his wife would be his first priority. We have duties to those whom we love which will always be more important to us than duties to a society we do not know.
The amount of critics as opposed to supporters seem to suggest that there are a number of flaws in the principle of utility which have failed to be addressed in future developments of the theory. In principle the theory does appear to be practical, however, in reality it is debatable whether it would be a workable ethic.