Since I have not been updated for such a long time, here is one of my work on John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism” for you to ponder upon.
PLEASE ASK BEFORE YOU COPY/USE ANYTHING written below, I AM THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR of the material below.
To prove happiness as one of the criteria of morality, Mill begins his proof with a general statement on the nature of ultimate ends. Mill admits that there is no direct proof to the utilitarian doctrine as it is not subjected to direct appeal to our sense and consciousness. Nonetheless, Mill defines the questions regarding ends as the questions of what are desirable before stating that the utilitarian doctrine preaches the desirability of happiness. Hence, Mill argues that his burden of proof is to demonstrate that happiness is something that people desire.
Although Mill could not explain why happiness is desirable, he attempts to persuade the reader that there is no reason to believe that happiness is not desirable. Mill explicitly states “No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness.” From this, it is clear that Mill is trying to equate the word ‘desire’ with the word ‘happiness by appealing to a psychological truth of human beings ‘feeling good’ when they satisfy their desires. Mill then illustrates the Greatest Happiness Principle with the statement “that each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons.” Through this, Mill reasons that happiness is a common good to all and it should be promoted as one of the criteria of morality.
The problem is Mill’s failure to explain why happiness should be an end. If happiness should not be an end, how can it be a criterion of morality? Even if happiness should be an end, how does this serve as a guideline to what is right and wrong? Earlier in the essay, Mill says: “A test of right and wrong must be the means, one would think, of ascertaining what is right and wrong, and not a consequence of already ascertained it.”[1] Although the sentence does not clearly reflect the objectives of Mill’s essay, it is fair to assume that Mill aims to show that utilitarianism can act as a test of what is right and wrong, or in other words, a criterion of morality. I will address this problem in three parts. I will first discuss the consistency of Mill’s proof with his initial claim, and then I will offer an example to further illustrate the problem before drawing a conclusion at the end of this paper.
From Mill’s proof, he claims that people approve of the utilitarian doctrine because it is our nature to desire happiness. Does this prove how utilitarianism serves as a criterion of morality? It seems that Mill was trying to sell the idea of the Greatest Happiness Principle, in which our conduct should be guided towards ends which promote the maximum amount of happiness. However, Mill did not explain how do people determine which form of happiness is morally right or wrong. Furthermore, Mill has also explicitly criticised the reliance upon our instincts to make judgements on what is right and wrong: “The difficulty is not avoided by having recourse to the popular theory of a natural faculty, a sense or an instinct, informing us of what is right and wrong.”[2] What is the difference between the desire of happiness and the moral instinct? If it is our nature to desire and pursue happiness, how different is this from being dictated by our own instincts? We cannot rely on our instincts because is limited to subjectivity and it is incoherent with Mill’s plan to demonstrate a test of what is right and wrong. Hence, Mill has failed to prove how ‘happiness as an end’ serves as a criterion of morality.
Take for example that Bill has to choose between spending time with his family and playing golf with his friends. The former will bring happiness to five of his family members while the latter would bring the same amount of happiness to five his friends. Bill knows that he has to disappoint either the five of his family members or the five of his friends and he has to make a moral judgement on which of these he ought to carry out. From this scenario, it is clear that considering the amount of happiness promoted of each choice would bring little benefit. Whichever option he chooses, there would be an equal amount of happiness and pain disposed to five people. However, it is likely that Mill would object by arguing that the virtue associated with spending time with his family will bring a higher form of happiness and thus the principle of utilitarianism would select the former action. Mill also states: “Of two pleasures, if there be one which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.”[3] But the question remains, what makes an action ought to be more desirable and preferable? This appears to be a tacit acceptance of our fallible moral instinct as a guide of what we ought to do. Consequently, this weakens Mill’s proof of happiness as a criterion of morality.
Mill’s method in selecting of which forms of happiness is more desirable by the general utility can also be questioned. By what means does the utilitarian doctrine identify which action gives a ‘higher form of happiness’ even though it brings the opposite of happiness to the moral agent? In the given example, it appears that utilitarianism is dependent on another doctrine of morality to differentiate between the higher and lower forms of happiness. In this particular situation, the use of ‘duty’ from the deontological school of thought would explain how spending time with the family is classified as a ‘higher form of happiness.’
Even if this problem is ignored, Mill’s proof lacks reasons why people will desire the greater happiness of society at the expense of their own. It is plausible to say that people desire happiness and therefore happiness should be maximized. However, it is not necessarily true that people will be willing to sacrifice their happiness for the greater good, which the utilitarian doctrine preaches. Therefore, happiness cannot be said to be a criterion of morality for three reasons: Happiness does not serve as a guide of what is right and wrong; Happiness is subjected to the subjectivity of the human instinct; and even if it does not, it is dependent on another moral principle as a guide for what we ought to do. Perhaps Mill himself could have been aware of the possible critical receptions as he wrote: “But if this doctrine be true, the principle of utility is proved. Whether it is so or not, must now be left to the consideration of the thoughtful reader.”[4]
[1] “Utilitarianism” John Stuart Mill, John Gray, On Liberty and Other Essays (New York: Oxford University Press 2008) Page 132
[2] Page 132
[3] Page 139
[4] Page 175
In my opinion... 
Recent Comments