The Utilitarian- John Stuart Mill

http://caroline-sullivan.weebly.com/



Caroline Sullivan
Caroline Sullivan
PHIL 1000-005
Professor Izrailevsky
07/28/2014

The Utilitarian- John Stuart Mill
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham and espoused by
John Stuart Mill that advocates that a moral action is one that provides the greatest good for
the greatest number of people. The amount of good produced by an action defines how
moral or just an action is. To determine which course of action one is to take in a given
situation, one must calculate the amount of units of good produced by the action. This is
measured in units of pleasure. The factors that influence the amount of units of pleasure
produced in each calculation are intensity, duration, fruitfulness, and likelihood. That is to
say, the more intense the pleasure received from each unit of happiness, the better; the longer
it lasts, the better; the greater the quantitative effect the pleasure has on us in the long-term,
the better; and the likelihood that the good of an action will occur as opposed to something of
no or negative net gain, the better. If this isnt already simultaneously complicated and
ambiguous enough yet, Mill introduces the notion that not just the quantity of pleasure
matters, but the quality of the pleasure should also be taken into account. He argues that
sensual, or hedonistic, pleasures are inferior to the greater pleasures of the intellect. This
raises questions about how to assess the value of varying pleasures. He provides no concrete
framework by which to value different pleasures, nor whatever an actual unit of pleasure is,
i.e., what it relates to in the real world. How do you practice a theory when you dont know
how to apply its bizarre and intangible scale of indeterminate units to the real-world pleasures
you experience?
It doesnt seem that, according to Mill, utilitarianism is actually about the greatest
happiness for the greatest number because many readings of Mill indicate that it would
actually be better to do something for oneself over a number of other people if the act were to
bring them greater overall pleasure. (Mackinnon, 36) Utilitarianism doesnt seem to be so
much an ethical theory, rather a method for justifying certain behaviors and practices. One
can rationalize anything from selfish behavior to inflicting pain on others if it calculates
according to their own bizarre, skewed perception of good. Furthermore, it doesnt even have
to be one person twisted sense of goodness or morality; an action can be justified solely on the
basis of whether it brings a net gain of units of pleasure. The introduction to Mill in the
Exploring Ethics book, cites that while keeping your promises is a good thing, there are
exceptions (potentially unlimited in number), where occasions when more happiness will be
produced by not keeping a promise is the right course of action (Exploring Ethics, 93). This
could be units of pleasure only for oneself, as Mackinnon notes in the PDF that begins with
The Principle of Utility. Mackinnon gives the example where one action may produce 200
units of happiness (this could be for oneself or for someone else, though this is suspect
because it is often for oneself), and another action that would provide 150 units of happiness
divided evenly between three people (50 units per person). Mackinnon says that the best
reading of Mill, however, seems to give preference to the maximization overall (Mackinnon,
36). If this seems rather contentious, its because it is. Not only, as an ethical theory, mind
you, does it rationalize selfishness and greed in certain ways, but it is also directly at odds
with the central point of utilitarianism- the greatest good for the greatest number does not
apply here. Its like someone who wholly believes in, say, natural law theory (where god is
the source of all truth and reason and that all of our actions must be towards the good of god),
operating a Ponzi scheme and arguing that what he is doing is not wrong by saying something
along the lines of god doesnt belong in the marketplace, or the financial market is no
place for religion. If god is the source of all reason and reality, then you cannot just decide
to make exceptions wherever is convenient to you. Ethics and morality are not based on
convenience, nor should they concede to certain conveniences or luxuries. Discrepancies such
as this are deal-breakers for many people because its clear to see that these types of
inconsistencies and easy answers have quite unsavory underlying motives once their disguises
are removed.
Another inconsistency, this time with a dash of pretention, is when he states that it is
better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied. (Mackinnon, 36) It seems apparent to
me that the pig he keeps referring to is actually himself elitist swine that he is.

Another issue with utilitarianism is the issue once again of relativism. Utilitarianism
is a universalistic theory, but it relies on individual perceptions of the value of certain things
over others. Everyone values different things differently, so how can one say whether one
thing is better than another? Also how can you know whether something will bring happiness
to others if you dont know what they value and therefore what will make them happy.
Pleasures are subjective, how can one determine what pleasures are more valuable than
others? How can one know if an action is to bring happiness to others because they do not
know what said others value. Its literally all relative; how in the world does one base their
scale of pleasures if pleasures are different for all people? And on what scale do you base your
units in order to calculate their outcomes? It is a system based entirely based on mathematical
calculations, yet no definite units or ways of measuring the shit youre supposed to be
calculating. These abstract units of pleasure or happiness, what the devil are they based on?
Are they the amount of dopamine released in a persons synapses? For this method of
calculating the utility of an action, the system would need to be based on some concrete unit
of measurement, like a Calorie or a whatever. Though even if it did have some actual,
tangible base to calculate, its not only a matter of being extremely temporally inefficient- one
does not have time to calculate the net pleasure of a time-sensitive situation or to know what
ripple effects the action may have, especially unintended ripple effects- but you also have to
deal with the Pandoras box of quality versus quantity of an outcome. This predicament of
valuating certain units of pleasure over others is very problematic and ethnocentric in nature.
Especially in a consequentialist theory such as utilitarianism, these extremely dubious
guidelines pose issues about whether a bad action is good if there is a net gain in pleasure.
The way utilitarianism operates according to its foundation that the goal is to produce a net
income of happiness, the means in of themselves may be wrong, but if the ends justify the
means, then the action is moral.
What I do appreciate about Mill is his dedication to the protection of minority groups
against the tyranny of the majority. This is particularly important as our world becomes an
increasing global community, to protect and preserve cultures and nations identities from
being coerced into conforming to the majority.

Works Cited

Cahn, Steven M. Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology Paperback. 9th. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.

MacKinnon, Barbara. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. 7th. Stamford, CT:
Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.