WEEK 12: J.S. Mill "Utilitarianism" Chapters 1-2

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

This week we are reading J.S. Mill's "Utilitarianism." Chapter one is very short and just sets up what Mill is going to talk about. Chapter two, "What Utilitarianism is," is where the real heart of his argument lies. Things I want you to think about: How compatible is Utilitarianism with Mill's political philosophy about Social, or Civil, Liberty? Do you see any tensions or conflicts? Where do you see convergence? Remember, we are discussing ethics. Ethics does not necessarily describe what is but what should be the case. Do you think that Utilitarianism is far away from what is the case? Why or why not? What does Utilitarianism being far or close to what is the case do to what you think about it as an ethical theory or system? Mill repeats several terms through the essay. What are they? How does he define them? How do they operate in his theory? Do agree or disagree with the definitions or how they function?

Remember if you are interested in writing about Immanuel Kant, you should look at the reading for next week, "The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals," Section Two. I'm telling you right now, it is not an easy read, but the ideas and the theory, that Kant wants to outline are very important, thought-provoking, and still have sway with us today.

-Mateo Duque.

[frankie11214]

Frankie Zhang

“Human beings have higher faculties than the animal appetites, and once they become conscious of them they don’t regard anything as happiness that doesn’t include their gratification.” ---Pg. 5

            Mill argues that the meaning of life should not be confined to just pleasure. He says human pleasure is indeed similar to animals but superior in term of humans having a moral sense. Humans have these animalistic instincts to mate but most of them have the moral sense to mate within their own species and not other kinds. He further continues to define human pleasure in the form of materialism. Humans seek different, tangible materials that accommodate to their mood. Some eat something tasteful when they are depressed, while others go on a frivolous shopping spree when they are happy. Another point Mill makes is that some human pleasures have no moral reasoning but are necessary. In essence, some humans mate for the feeling of pleasure but it becomes necessary in repopulating their species when the outcome gives offspring. Without it, the human species would die off.  Consequently, Mill concludes it is necessary to view the quality and quantity of pleasure that comes from one’s action before making a moral judgment.

My question is why do some people often criticize and shut down a new idea or suggestion rather than listen first and then agree or disagree?

[szeswitz]

Mill defines an act as being morally right if the amount of pleasure, or utility, outweighs the pain within a community or society at whole. 

{"...the greatest happiness principle, has had a large share in forming the moral doctrines even of those who most scornfully reject its authority."} 4th paragraph Chp1.

How this general morality is enforced or understood, whether empirically(individual experience) or a priori (laws), is irrelevant, so long as the consequence is the greatest happiness. Mill also makes the distinction between higher pleasure, which are more intellectually stimulating, and lower pleasure, which more physically stimulating. Higher pleasure is more closely related to utility, as it promotes general human flourishing and individuality.

The opportunity cost of the greatest happiness for the majority is the pain for a minority. This creates a tension to Mill's idea of true freedom: pursing ones own happiness is an innate right, so long as it doesn't prevent others from doing the same. This idea is the moral foundation to the United States and most 1st world countries. However, is it ethical for a national of a 1st world country to exploit the repression individual liberties for their own national benefit?  I think the global economy operates in an inverted utilitarian way: rather than the minority sacrificing to the masses, it's the masses sacrificing toward the minority. 

[Beatriz Chong]

“If by happiness be meant a continuity of highly pleasurable excitement, it is evident enough that this is impossible” (page 1064).

Mill argues that we should all strive to do what will cause the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. According to him, this is the morally correct thing to do. However, one objection that rises is that it is impossible to always have happiness. Happiness will only last for a certain period of time. It can be hours, days, or months. In all the cases, the state of happiness is temporary. In addition, happiness is not something essential that we need. We can live without it. After all, there are many people who lived without it and still managed to live in a good way and turn out as decent people. I agree with this objection because life has its ups and downs. It is impossible to always be in a state of happiness. No matter how rich one is or how positive one’s personality is, there are always circumstances in life that bring us sadness, pain, disappointments and suffering. Although it would be nice if there was no suffering or pain in the world, I don’t think it is neither a realistic nor an attainable idea. My question is whether this idea of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” would actually apply or work in our society. That is, if people would actually be willing to do things for others generously or be selfish and only care about themselves.

[NatashaPersaud]

"The difficulty is not avoided by having recourse to the popular theory of a natural faculty, a
sense or instinct, informing us of right and wrong."
                                                                          -chapter 1
 
                   At first, I don't understand what he's trying to say with this sentence. I thought he was trying to say that us knowing right and wrong is learned but then he uses the word "faculty". What's the purpose of using that word in the first place? I've come to understand that the meaning of faculty, philosophically, is an inherent power or ability. I've come to the conclusion that he's saying that knowing right and wrong is innate. Well, it's what I understand from his textual language. I'm not sure if I really agree with this sentence though. I think you learn right and wrong by making mistakes and growing. I don't think it's something that we are born with. A baby doesn't know right from wrong when he/she accidentally puts there hand on a stove. They learn not to do it again by remembering the first time they did it, it hurt. I don't even completely understand this sentence so I guess me trying to explain it would be pointless. BUT if i am right, I think the child example works well. If not, then I was wrong. With that said, I don't agree with his writings. Both chapter one and two didn't make much sense to me. I understood what he was saying, its how he said it that didn't really grasp my attention. :-)

[William Sun]

"If those who are competently acquainted with both these pleasures place P_1 so far above P_2 that prefer it even when they know that a greater amount of discontent will come with it, and wouldn't give it up in exchange for any quantity of P_2 that they are capable of having, we are justified in ascribing to P_1."

I could really relate what Mill says here, one of the pleasures in my life is exercising my sense of taste. Eating is one of the activities in life in which I take pleasure in and I'm not too picky either. I enjoy something simple like the sliders of White Castles to dining at Michelin Star restaurants. My P_1 would be Korean cuisine and let's place White Castle sliders as P_2. As much as I enjoy a crave case from White Castles it does not give me the satisfaction that I receive from indulging in a meal served at a Korean restaurant. Even offering White Castle's entire menu would not make me second guess this decision, quality over quantity. Even though this is an example of physical pleasure this thought came to mind immediately. In my opinion I think this is true because it is human nature to have their eyes on the prize and attempt to strive for the best and anything less would just be settling.

[T Payne]

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

Mill claims that in order for an argument to occur, the pig, or the fool, would have to know both sides. If either of the two presents an argument it is because they clearly do not know both sides. A human is higher than a pig, Socrates is higher than a fool.  In both cases, he says, it's better to be the higher being and that the lower being is ignorant. I related this to the saying "You may think you have it bad but there's always someone that has it worse". One of the best ways to understand the difference, or weigh the pros and cons is to walk in another person's shoes. Animals pleasures are simple. They get pleasure from things like eating and mating. Yes, we also enjoy these pleasures but this is as far as satisfaction goes for animals. Even when humans are dissatisfied with something, they still have the knowledge to make their life better. Whether we are stressed, sad, or depressed, we have memories of happiness to keep us going. And when Mill talks about "a fool", I think he is referring to ignorant or less fortunate people who experience level is the same  as an animal. Yet are humans better off then a fool? There are people in poor countries that don't have much but are very happy for  what they do have. To me it seems that the rich and more educated people are the ones that never seem to find happiness because they are never satisfied. Nothing is ever enough, they are always wanting more. 

My questions is: Why would one accept any type of dissatisfaction over another's satisfaction? 

[giazkhan]

I think the question you ask is interesting because in "On The Liberty," Mill talks about how majority tend to ignorantly oppress the minority's opinion without listening. Majority don't listen because they think that their opinion is the only right one there is so even listening to minority seems a waste of time. Mill talks about how there are some great intellects in minorities and if they are given a chance, they can help greatly, but again like your question points out,they are "criticized shut down."

[giazkhan]

"Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into which it has thrown them, are not favourable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise. " chapter 2

In this quote Mill is talking about how humans tend to barely care for noble causes since its not something from which too many of us benefit. Young people according to Mill are one of the first ones to turn themselves away from fighting for noble causes. This is due to the influence of society and what is expected from these young people depending on their occupations.
I don't really agree with what Mill is saying here because as we see today and many times in past, young people do actually tend to fight for noble causes since they know it will have an effect on their future. If we look at Vietnam War, young people played a big part in helping shed some light on the dangers of that war and eventually had a major effect in opening the public's eyes. There are many other examples like this one where the youth helped fight for a noble cause.
However, Mill is right about the society's effect on young people since if the society doesn't really care much as a whole for a noble cause like utilitarianism, then young people are going to just mind their own businesses and not care at all about things unrelated to their occupations like he is saying.
Noble causes are and always have been topics of personal choice pretty much like utilitarian way of thinking. It depends on the individual whether to see happiness and change on a broader level and make a sacrifice himself or just be selfish and not really care about others.

[mstrose94]

My response to that would be that it is a natural part of human nature to avoid new ideas. These new ideas that people feel or experience are unfamiliar and we as a race find new to be wrong. Some people like to remain stable and have a routine especially when things are going wrong. The natural instinct that we have is to follow up on what makes us successful. Just like the proverb says "If it ain't broke don't fix it". But some people do distinguish from others and take pride in trying or taking on new ideas or suggestions.

[jeanmalabre01]

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; unhappiness, pain and deprivation of pleasure.” (Utilitarianism, ch. 2, 2^nd paragraph)

 Mill is offended by the fact that even the most educated of us are often time “falling into the shadow mistake” of seeing Utilitarianism as the mere presence of pleasure without pain. Mill argues that Utilitarianism as the doctrine of morality has a broader sense than the restrictive sense that most of us tend to give to it. It is the doctrine of life which goes beyond pleasure, pain, or happiness. Let’s image this scenario for a moment: You are a coast guard and there is a very bad storm approaching. Five members of your family are on an island, and fifteen other random people on another island at equal distance. Both islands are at great risk of going under water and you only have time for one trip, therefore you can only save one group of people (the group of five people or the group of fifteen people). What would be your choice?

A utilitarian ought to go after the larger group because it makes more sense to him to sacrifice five for fifteen no matter who those five represent. Mill’s argument seems plausible as it evident that despite the fact this sacrifice is painful, does not promote happiness, it is what defines a Utilitarian. How humanly possible is it to be a true utilitarian considering the above scenario?         

[rachel.zoldan23]

Rachel Zoldan

 

Mill says that one cause of unhappiness is selfishness.  Therefore, if everyone were to be generous and provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, there would be this state of happiness.  But its not that simple.  Its impossible for people to think about others all the time; people live for themselves and their own interests as well.  If one cannot justifiably do something to benefit themselves without thinking if it will provide happiness or if they could be doing something else instead, why would they be motivated to be a utilitarian? In addition, Mill says the consequences of your actions have to take other peoples happiness into account.  This brings forth the issue that the happiness of one is not on the same standard as another's, so whomever calculates the measurement of happiness on the consequences of his own actions is subjective.  Either he may unknowingly overestimate his own happiness and miscalculate the effect of his consequence on others or knowingly make an exception for himself.  For example, if there were the circumstance where one can prevent one out of two trains from crashing, and one had five family members and the other had ten strangers, one would be inclined to save their family even though it wouldn't be moral according to the utility principle.  According to Mill, people know and understand consequenses because "mankind have been learning by experience.''  He then says that "mankind still have much to learn as to the effects of actions on the general happiness."  This only indicates that experienced people understand what they, themselves, have experienced, making them uncapable of judging in other areas.  To answer your question, I think the utility principle is too demanding to be applied to society.  Maybe one can follow the utility principle in some areas, but in other areas, in my opinion, one would pursue their own inclinations or interests even though it does not follow the greatest happiness princple.  I do not view this as selfish although a utilitarian might consider this a selfish act that would decrease overall happiness. 

[Yaakov Bressler]

Rachel, I will try to be as concise as possible for your sake. A true utilitarian would say that a certain degree of selfishness is important for maintaining order. This is so because customary unselfishness destroys the freedom of opinion and choice. This, Mill says, is one of our inalienable rights. Complete disapproval of selfishness is the tyranny of the majority at work and would stifle self expression and action. So in fact it is necessary.

Yaakov Bressler

[ruksanamannan]

“The lack of any clear recognition of an ultimate standard may have •corrupted the moral beliefs of mankind or made them uncertain; on the other hand, the bad effects of this deficiency may have been moderated in practice.” (Mill- chapter 3)

 

When I read this section of chapter 3 from “Utilitarianism” is mainly about how morals are impacted by other factors such as standard. For me, in any and every society there is a “standard” of living and behavior which morals are derived from. For example, in my country Bangladesh, towards the village morals are all created through the standard. The standard being that what everyone is doing, hence the moral beliefs are corrupted. There are no opnions that are able to change a moral, like for them its morally correct for a woman to stay home and cook while the man is working, There morals are all derived from the standard of their small village. Morals are also brought from religion, and are also changed through time. Overall, are all moral corrupted in some way, in that case, do we all just create our own morals or do we create a “standard” for these morals. In most cases, morals are what the majority thinks is “standard.” 

[conis...@aol.com]

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

T Payne,

You post very good points in your response to this quote. What really stood out to me was your question; "Why would one accept any type of dissatisfaction over another's satisfaction?" I believe society is formed on a scale called social class. Our satisfactions differs the higher we get on the scale. For example a person who is in a higher social class is used to getting a five star meal where as the person in the lower class is happy to just get a home cooked meal, even if it tastes bad. If the person in the higher class were to ever get a meal less than their expectations one night. That person would get upset yes, but still be glad they didn't have to eat the left overs from two nights ago like the person in the lower class has to. The lower class is satisfied with what they have to eat because that's what their used to and that's all they know. If you knew how much more gratification you could get from eating food from the best chefs in the world, of course you would take the one meal that you didn't really favor over the left overs. Like Mill said, "it is better to be a human dissatisfied (the higher social class) than a pig satisfied (the lower social class);.."

[konfeta04]

“And when the term ‘utility’ is ignorantly misused in this way, it isn’t always in criticism of utilitarianism…the idea being that utility is something superior to frivolity and the mere pleasures of the moment, whereas it really includes them.” (Page 4)

Here Mill talks about the different misunderstandings that people have on what the utilitarianism ultimately encompasses. He talked earlier about how some misunderstand the importance that utilitarianism places on either pleasure or utility. In the quote however he speaks about how some consider the school of thought to be merely about utility, the usefulness of something, but claims that utilitarianism includes the frivolity and pleasures as well. The reason this quote interested me is that I also used to think that utilitarianism was based solely on doing what was the most useful in a given situation. I think the fact that it includes the pleasures might make it more appealing to others because it is impossible to just choose what is most useful without taking into consideration of what you need, whether it is pleasure or frivolity. It makes it seem like a more realistic way to base your actions off of as everyone has needs that they have to meet, and must balance usefulness with pleasure.

[gabdel7]

Yaakov,

If by utilitarian standards, a selfish choice is one that puts an increase in the utility of the individual over an increase in utility for the whole community/others, then wouldn't that make what you are describing unethical? Perhaps essentially a certain level of "unethical" behavior is then needed to maintain balance within society as a whole. The "customary unselfishness" you are pondering sounds to me like Calvinism, which is of course directly opposed to Mill's philosophy on personal freedom of belief and action, as you mentioned. But going back to the need for a minimal amount of selfish behavior even within the context of a hypothetical utilitarian society; if such behavior is the exception, and the rule is one of advancing the happiness and/or contentment of others above the happiness and/or contentment of yourself (as Mill says constitutes morality), perhaps Mill and Calvin have a little more in common than we'd have thought. Mill's beliefs are certainly not as rigid and much more allowing of selfish behavior, as you explained, but in both cases it is a matter of ultimately regarding ethics as about the good of the total people, and not merely the deliberating individual, involved. Anyway, I think this ties in nicely with Mill's emphasis on there being no either/or when debating opposing viewpoints, each hold a bit of the truth. 

-Gabby 

[David Blinder]

The principle of utility states : "an action is right in-so-far as it tends to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number".

My essay dealt with this in much more depth but the gist of it is this. Is happiness a sufficient enough concept for it to be the foundation of ethics ? 

What I mean by this question is that happiness may not be sufficient to decide what is ethical and what is not. As everyone knows what makes one "happy" differs from individual to individual and from society to society. 

Sometimes what makes a society or group of people happy can be considered harmful, for instance actively harming others for one's own pleasure. A good example of this would be Nazi Germany. It brought happiness to this society to impose it's own values onto others and even actively kill entire groups of people such as the Jews. Any person contributing to such an action would be considered ethical in the utilitarian sense.

Therefore, happiness alone cannot be the foundation upon which an ethical system is built, if it entail potentially harming others even though it makes a society happy.

[David Blinder]

Another factor in utilitarianism which makes it impractical is that in order to judge whether an action is right or wrong we have to wait and see exactly how many people were made happy by an action and how many were made unhappy. However, in order to truly weight in these factors we would have to wait an infinite amount to time in order to properly judge the effects of an action, especially when looking at actions which have more worldwide effect. Since in utilitarianism the "morality" of a person performing the action is unimportant, the only thing we can judge is the effects of the action.

For example. Although the immediate effects of the A-bombing of Japan in 1945 may have been beneficial in that this act helped end what could have been a longer war, yet the long range effects of this action maybe extremely harmful since it demonstrated the power of such a weapon thereby encouraging countries to seek this power and in turn potentially harm the entire world with it's use.  

[andreyy94]

Andrey Dagayev

"The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

 

Happiness is something that varies amongst individuals and has no power to implicate any authority relating to the morals or actions of a person. According to Mills’, happiness is the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. Life goes on even without happiness and with a system to give everyone happiness, there will be failure and instead it will do the opposite. The theory of universal happiness, according to Mill “excites many minds” and among them in some of the most estimable in feeling and purpose, inveterate dislike. J.S Mill tries to establish a sense of morality behind this system. This doctrine goes further than emotion and is aimed towards a mass society rather than focusing on the individual. The demand behind this system in my opinion is not reasonable. You cannot measure something as abstract as happiness and distribute it as if it was candy on Halloween. Pain cannot be eliminated and happiness will not always be evenly amongst society. Human nature affects our decisions and the actions we carry out, so Utilitarianism seems irrational in my opinion. A question I would ask would be : How would J.S Mills’ theories and ideas relating to justice and happiness protect the individual and how do the safeguards that Mill mentions play a role on the individual? 

[rachel.zoldan23]

Rachel Zoldan

 

"The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals "utility" or "the greatest happiness principle" holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness..." (1061)

 

According to Mill, one has to consider the consequence of increasing the happiness for the largest amount of people. If you consider the situation in which killing one person would prevent five others from being killed.  The problem is whether the first murder is justified to prevent multiple murders, or killing is unjustified no matter what.  Mill would say that the consequence that would bring more happiness and less pain is therefore the moral choice.  However, I disagree because committing acts that are essentially immoral has no place in a moral system.  Such a system would demand each person no choice but to be responsible when failed to increase happiness and when prevented others from increasing happiness.  Mill, anticipating an objection, said that “this was a complaint not against utilitarianism, but against any standard or morality at all.” But my question is how can a system in which one is responsible to provide happiness, even though it might involve immoral acts, be considered a moral system? 

[Brian Low]

"Moving back now from quantity to quality·: there are different kinds of pain and different kinds of pleasure, and every pain is different from every pleasure."

     Mill is basically stating that to the many kinds of pain there are plenty of different pleasures vice versa. Comparing this to Mills idea of Utilitarianism, this claim supports exactly what he wants to prove. Utilitarianism is the belief where you must find the greatest amount fo happiness for the greatest amount of people. Mills mentions quantity to quality, where he's basically saying the quality of happiness outweighs the quantity that it can support. In short if the happiness is meager and un needed it really doesn't matter how much happiness is being distributed. Mills basically wants the BEST of happiness to the GREATEST amount of happiness at the same time. He doesn't want useless pleasures to be distributed amongst the people. Mills also brings up pain at this point which makes me rethink the people on the train track example. Even though some will be pained with the death of those killed by the train, the pleasure of the people who survived should benefit society the best. Yes its true pain will equal pleasure in some sort of way, but Mills wants the best for the least amount of casualties that can be caused. That is the utilitarian idea, even if it means the harm of another the happiness should benefit the most amount of people, but the happiness needs to be substantial enough to truly call it happiness.

-Brian

[tenzin choetso]

"The sentiment of justice, in that one of its elements which consists of the desire to punish, is thus, retaliation or vengeance, rendered by intellect and sympathy applicable to those injuries, that is, to those who hurt, which wound us through, or in common with, society at large." -John Stuart Mill

       Mill says that the viewpoint of justice consists of many components such as one's desire to punish through retribution or payback, portrayed by one's smartness and benevolence relevant to those injustice or those who harm others also wound the community as a whole. He goes on to say that this isn't moral. The moral thing to do in this case is to let the law handle it because it is against their natural inclination. I agree with this because people often confused justice with revenge. When the law decides the punishment, it is less biased than the family of the victim. While laws sometimes get in the way of justice, it still isn't right to act on vengeance. Vengeance clouds one's judgments and blinds them of their actions.   

[simondfchan]

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

Mills believes pleasure is divided into two sections. There is high pleasure which is it requires some time to achieve that kind of pleasure and low pleasure is when you can earn the kind of pleasure in very short amount of time. For example, I just had a angus burger, that would be consider a low pleasure. I didn't do it to benefit others. Others didn't gain anything from me.Mill mentions that higher pleasure is definitely better than low pleasure. Everyone loves pleasure1 I don't think any of us wouldn't want pleasure. I've never heard of anyone said “ I want to be sad”. Mill states that we have to pushes ourselves even hard to earn the higher pleasure. That means you have to improve ourselves constantly to pursuit the higher pleasure. Mills also states that virtuous sacrifices may earn more pleasure. In other words, Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number. It is when a person perform an useful act to to benefit of others. For example, a fire fighter tried to save as many as lives as possible during 911. That is an act for higher pleasure. He would sacrifice his life to save many people.