Does J.S.Mill abandon Utilitarianism?

J.S.Mill agreed with many concepts, which Bentham had, and wrote about this in his doctrine on Utilitarianism. However there were some specific ideas that Mill objected to. One of these ideas was the way in which Bentham believed that pleasure was the be all and end all of life, that you couldn’t feel anything better than physical pleasure. He was criticised by Mill for bringing in an indulging lifestyle due to the fact that the pleasures which Bentham was mentioning were described by many as “animal pleasures”, e.g. eating drinking, sex etc. Mill rejected this idea as he believed that “to suppose that life has 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 only of a swine”. In other words there are more ways to have pleasure within ones life other than physical indulgence and from that Mill derived the new idea of having higher and lower pleasures.

Mill believed that there are other aspects of life, which could become more pleasurable to some than others once these pleasures had been developed. With regards to Mills theory of high pleasure he believed that things such as poetry, cultural activities, once developed would be seen and felt by many as a higher pleasure rather than those of the lower pleasures with regards to sex and drinking etc. In Mills view the higher pleasures completely overrun the lower pleasures. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig dissatisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”, is what Mill wrote with regards to the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

 Instead of looking at the quantity of pleasure, Mill begins to look at quality instead. However the problem with the higher and lower pleasure theory is that in order to make a distinction between the two, you as the person must have experienced both of these pleasures to say which is more preferable to one. If you haven’t experienced both pleasures then it is not possible for you to make a distinction, as you have nothing compare the one pleasure you have already consumed with. It can be said that Mill firmly believes that higher pleasures are “quantitivly superior and that a higher pleasure is always preferable in circumstances”.

When Mill developed his theory of higher and lower pleasures, he also indicated that although he firmly believes that any person who had experienced both the higher and lower pleasures, e.g. sex and poetry, that person would always choose what he believed to be the higher pleasure i.e. poetry. However in some instances Mill also states that some people may decide to reject the higher pleasure in exchange for the lower pleasures. “Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, because they have not time or opportunity for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not deliberately because they prefer them, but because they are either the only ones to which they have access, or the only ones which they are any longer capable of enjoying”

Mills higher and lower pleasure theory shows that he is not abandoning utilitarianism, he is merely developing the idea which Bentham had in the first place, however when Mill suggests that not only can pleasures be distinguished between higher and lower, some can also be seen as more noble. With this in mind it is showing that Mill is now moving away from Utilitarianism.

The concept of utilitarianism implies that we should always act in order to maximise happiness and that is the only way. This in some respects this is a very difficult task due to the fact that sometimes people do not wish to do what is best for everyone else but indeed for themselves. Mill believed that this was the case and that “the great majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up”. Therefore Mill is going against Bentham and the classic utilitarian theory when he says that sometimes people’s intentions are not to maximise the happiness of the general welfare but for themselves. This is not what utilitarianism requires, after its entire main objective is to maximise the greatest number of people who can be happy whatever the consequences.

Another point of utilitarianism, which Mill has a specific view of, is, the whole question regarding whether or not there is any possible time for calculus in a given situation. Bentham rejects the idea that there is no possible time to do a hedonic calculus in an emergency. In an emergency Bentham believes that one simply reacts but after that they should then go back and perform a hedonic calculus to see if the right thing was in fact done, and if so use it for future references. He also believed that if a person was in a position which encountered emergencies often e.g. emergency workers, they should pre calculate based on a number of hypothetical scenarios so that they are relatively ready to deal with the situation when the actual emergency arises. However a problem with hedonic calculus is that not everybody finds it an enjoyable activity. Therefore the more time spent doing it, the less pleasure people are having, which according to the rules of utilitarianism is incorrect.

Mill believes that  “there has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species”. Mill suggests that we apply subordinate principles for every day decisions and that we don’t do a utilitarian calculation. The subordination principles, which Mill talks about, are ones have been learned through many years of experience. However although the principles have been gathered over along time, there is nothing to suggest that they cannot be altered or changed in any way. What Mill believes should be done s to apply the subordinate principles until one of these three things occur. Firstly if one has reason to think that they are in an unusual situation. Secondly if one is in a situation in which subordinate principles conflict and thirdly, if one is trying to adopt which subordinate principles to adopt. In all of these cases it seems that Mill then believes that we can move away from these principles and take a more direct consideration, which is needed to achieve the greatest happiness which is evidently what utilitarianism strives to get.

In this case Mill is not abandoning Utilitarianism but what he is doing is broadening the way of thinking of Benthams original ideas. He is not suggesting that Benthams ideas are completely incorrect, all he is stating is that there are different ways to go about calculating the happiness of any given situation with the help of past experiences and your own mind.

Within Utilitarianism there are two versions, which ethicists have derived from this theory, these are known as ‘Act utilitarianism’ and ‘Rule utilitarianism’. Act utilitarianism states that it is the value of the consequences of a particular act that determines whether the act is right or not. Rule utilitarianism maintains that a behavioural code or rule is morally right if the consequences of adopting that rule are more favourable that unfavourable to everyone. It directs the deliberating agent to calculate the consequences simply of the individual act in question. It directs the deliberating agent to act according to rules such that if everyone acted on them, happiness would be maximised. Rule Utilitarians sometimes claim, “Commonly recognised principles of morality in fact express the evolved wisdom about which sorts of actions in fact tend to bring weal and woe”. Therefore, utilitarianism is not such a revolutionary proposal at it may have seemed.

Overall after analysing many aspects of Mills theory with regards to Utilitarianism I believe that he is not abandoning the whole concept, but is purely enlarging the scope of utilitarianism, arguing for a qualitative element to be adopted. The point was to maximise the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but also the higher pleasures of the greatest number; higher pleasures being the intellectual rather than the carnal pleasures e.g. poetry over sex. Although he didn’t believe that all of Benthams work was correct, he never seemed to undermine it, but Mill merely enhanced the way in which people thought about utilitarianism and the way in which it works and hold moral ground.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Human Needs, Rights Political Values; American Philosophical Quarterly; H.J. McCloskey

Political Ideas; Lecture 3

John Stuart Mill on Liberty and other essays

John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham; Utilitarianism and other essays

Bentham, An introduction to the Principles of Morals and legislation

Mill’s Essay “Bentham”

Bentham’s Works, Vol. X.