(An excerpt from the book “Ethics” by Pasco, M.O.

et al, 2018, with some minor modifications and

discussions by the teacher for the purpose of simplifying ideas for the students)

Module V GEC 18 UTILITARIANISM: John Stuart Mill

Learning Outcomes
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

(1) Articulate the meaning of a consequentialist ethics;

(2) Analyze the greatest happiness principles;
(3) Examine the objections to Mill’s position and his responses to each of them; and
(4) Evaluate ethical decisions from the point of view of utilitarianism.

A. INTRODUCTION

(1) Human decisions always have consequences. Whenever one decides to do something, one’s
actions affect other people in ways beyond how one thought it would. Decisions continually
affect the configuration and integrity of various forms of human relationships because in
deciding to do something, for instance, one actually brings something, new into the world that
has never existed before.
 Decisions bring forth new ideas, objects, and relationships into play in the realm of action
and thought.
 Because one decides in a certain way, one affects others and the world in a particular way,
differently from how one would have if one decided differently. In other words, particular
decisions have particular, consequences that correspond to how one’s motives translated
into action through a decision.
 In making decisions, one either looks to one’s motives and to the foreseeable consequences
of one’s actions. Good decisions are brought about by good and just motives and results in
good consequences. Bad decisions are motivated by anything most society deems
malicious, such as selfishness, spite or envy, and if they have destructive consequences.
Real life is a lot more complicated.
(2) Motives are not always pure and consequences vary in kind and severity depending on those
affected.
(3) How does one judge the morality of a decision or an act? Does one examine the motivation
behind the decision and see whether the act is mostly motivated by goodness or does one look
at the results of the act?
 If one judges the morality of an action based on its consequences, what categories can
he/she use to judge whether the act did produce good consequences?
 How can one say that an action did produce desirable consequences?
 Does the end justify the means?
 Does the goodness of the consequences, for instance, have more bearing than the way the
method, or modus operandi with which such consequences are delivered?
 In other words, even if one were to say that morality is a matter of producing the best
consequences, how do we understand its moral value in relation to motive and action?
 Are motives irrelevant so long as an action or decision produces favorable consequences?
 Is the method by which a decision is carried out immaterial in assessing the rightness or
wrongness of an act (for instance, the act itself is considered wrong, such as lying)?

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that tries to grapple with these questions. Among the famous
proponents of this way of thinking, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873 A.D.) is considered by many to
be the most influential. John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian theory of morality is a development and
clarification of the earlier form of theory authored by Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832 A.D.) and
espoused by his Father, James Mill (1773 – 1836 A.D.)

James Mill homeschooled John Stuart on the Benthamite doctrine, which essentially states that
it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.
Happiness in this context is understood as the predominance of pleasure over pain. John Stuart
later on revises this doctrine by highlighting a distinction between qualities and quantities of
pleasure and pains.
 Mill’s moral theory is considered as consequentialist in that it judges the rightness and the
wrongness of actions based on their consequences. As opposed to deontological theories of
morality like Kant’s theory, which emphasizes the motivation of duty and Virtue Ethics, which
emphasize the character of agents; Utilitarianism judges actions base on the quality and
quantity of pleasure they are able to extend to as many people as possible.

In other words, Mill holds that happiness (the predominance of pleasure over pain) is the goal of
morality. One deliberates and reflects upon what is right before acting because one takes into
account the potential effects of one’s actions on other people’s happiness. One therefore, sees
the importance of community in making moral choices. Deciding on one’s happiness is not a
solitary affair but an act which essentially brings to the fore one’s relationship with others.

Bentham’s Felicific/Hedonistic Calculus

Bentham’s Felicific/Hedonistic calculus is a method/guide to balance the pros and cons of a

proposed course of action in relation to balance pleasures and pains it potentially produces.
Felicific calculus is an algorithm (a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or
other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer) formulated by utilitarian
philosopher, Jeremy Bentham for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific
action is likely to cause. These are some guide questions to measure it.
1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2. Duration: How long does the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or remoteness: How soon does the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: What is the probability that the action is followed by sensations of the
same kind?
6. Purity: What is the probability that it is not followed by sensations of the opposite
kind?
7. Extent: How many people are affected?

B. The Greatest Happiness Principle

1. Happiness as the yield of right action

In Mill’s ethics, actions are understood as right with respect to their capacity to promote
happiness and wrong when they tend to promote the opposite of happiness. Happiness for Mill
is pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is pain or the absence of pleasure. For
Mill, the Principle of Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle is the supreme measure of
morality.
 Pleasure and the freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends, and all desirable
things are desired either because they are inherently pleasurable or because they contribute
to the prevention of pain.

2. Objection to such doctrine

One of the foremost objections to such a doctrine is that it seems to degrade the nature of the
human person by reducing morality to a pleasure-driven activity, not unlike that of an animal’s
life that seeks only to multiply pleasure and avoid pain. The objectors point to the fact that it is
a doctrine suited for the followers of the Ancient Greek Philosopher, Epicurus (341 – 270 B.C.)
who thought that the purpose of philosophy is to attain happiness and tranquility in life.

Epicurus believed that happiness corresponds to “atraxia” and “aponia”; “atraxia” as the peace
and freedom from fear, and “aponia” as the absence of pain.

3. Response to the objection

The followers of the Epicurean doctrine respond that it is actually their accusers that present the
human person in a degrading light by implying that human beings are incapable of experiencing
any other form of pleasure other than that comparable to the pleasure of an animal. Mill adds
 that there is no Epicurean or any such-related doctrine which does not assign to the pleasures of
the intellect, feelings and the imagination a higher value than pleasures that derive from mere
physical sensations. In other words, Mill’s utilitarian doctrine makes a concrete distinction
between higher and lower forms of pleasure. It does not advocate a life of reckless abandon
and non-stop partying. Some kind of pleasures are more desirable and valuable than others.

4. How does one determine which pleasure are higher than others?
a. Quality over quantity
Mill explains, If I were asked what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures or what
makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being
greater in amount, there is but one possible answer.

Answer: It is the more desirable pleasure. If there be one of the two pleasures to which all
or almost all who have experienced these two pleasures give a preference, irrespective of
any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it that would be the more desirable pleasure. If one
of the two pleasures is placed so far above the other by those who are competently
acquainted with the two pleasures so that they prefer it, even though they know it to be
attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of
the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the
preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in
comparison of small amount.

b. Bentham’s Version of Utilitarianism

It focuses on the potential amount or quantity of happiness that an action can potentially
produce for it to be considered right.

c. Mill’s ethics
He makes a sharp and nuanced division of higher and lower forms of pleasure in terms of
quality. Happiness should not be measured solely on the basis of how long or how intense the
feeling of pleasure is for a person or to those affected by an action. Although both Bentham and
Mill agree that an action’s rightness or wrongness must take into account the number of those
that shall be affected, Mill says that even if more people benefit from an action’s consequences,
but the kind of pleasure they experience is considered lower or bases than the consequences of
an action that pleases a lot less people, but please them in a more human way, then the latter
course of action is deemed more right. In that it promotes the greatest happiness of the
greatest number while considering the fact that some pleasures are more befitting of a human
being than others.
Mill says that the pleasures of a higher quality are those that employ distinctively human
faculties, such as the intellect.

However, it should be noted that Mill is not saying that people who have experienced both the
pleasures of sensation and pleasures of the intellect consistently prefer the latter on every
occasion. He is not saying that competent judges of pleasures always prefer the higher forms of
pleasure for example, reading a good book over having a night of drinks with friends. He says
that these people would not choose a manner of existence that includes a greater amount of
lower pleasures than higher pleasures. While it is reasonable to think that someone of
experience of rational competence would sometimes prefer to go out and party with friends on
some nights, it would go against reason for them to go out every night to party at the expense
of experiencing higher forms of pleasure, albeit of a smaller quantity. In other words, a wise
man would not exchange his lot for that of a fool’s lot even if he were promised the pleasure’s
befitting of a fool’s for a lifetime. This is precisely because a competently experienced human
recognizes that the pleasures of wisdom, though fewer in quantity, far outweigh that of a fool’s
pleasure. Mill does not assert that the exercise of distinct human faculties like the intellect has
a greater intrinsic value than the exercise of those that promote the pleasures of sensation.
What he claims is that the pleasures derived from uniquely human activities such as reading,
conversing with others, and philosophizing have superior value than other forms of activities.
For example, if one is faced with the choice of playing online games all day for a week and
studying school lessons for at least three hours a day for a week, one must ask oneself which
course of action fulfills one’s higher faculties more. One should also ask how many people can
benefit from such a choice compared to others, as well as the kind of happiness it can bring
these people. Let us thus examine the case:

Playing online games all day for a week
 Immediately satisfies one’s search for fun
and excitement
 Allows one to hang out with friends
 Lets one enjoy oneself while escaping the
everyday pressures of daily tasks like
household chores, etc.
 Essentially satisfies one and one’s gaming
friends immediately
Studying three hours a day for a week
 Tedious, yet allows one to develop
his/her intellect and virtue of
perseverance in learning important
lessons for school
 The discipline of focusing on relevant
tasks related to one’s education can go a
long way in one’s future endeavors.
 Relatively solitary
 Has the potential to bring pleasure to
one’s family by showing one’s gratitude
for their gift of education

When one carefully examines the kinds of pleasures at stake in the possible consequences of
one’s decision, one realizes that studying, while seemingly “painful” relative to one’s desire for
immediate gratification, bears more potential to bring happiness in the long run compared to
playing online games. Hence, even if we say, for instance, that playing online games brings
more pleasure to more people in a more immediate manner, one still has to ask what form of
pleasure it brings them. Are these pleasures long – lasting? What happens after a week of
camaraderie in the online gaming shop? Are the bonds created there bonds of true friendship
or provisional bonds of usefulness (your alliances are created and judged based on your ability
to play the game such that if you are a terrible player, is there any guarantee that people would
want to play with you still?) Does the pleasure of winning in a game bring you authentic human
fulfillment or is the pleasure transitory and empty at the end of the day?

On the other hand, if one chooses to instead use a shorter amount of time studying, one also
has to ask if the pain of school work is worth the pleasure it potentially creates for oneself and
others. Even if there is no guarantee that studying automatically translates into higher grades in
school is the activity still worth doing? What life skills does one gain from persevering through
pages and pages of lessons? In spite of the fact that this choice might bring pleasure to less
people (to just one’s parents and oneself, for instance), might it not be said that the quality of
pleasure is significantly higher than the pleasures derived from playing online games all day? Is
not the potential of deepening and expanding one’s knowledge and exercising one’s intellect
worth the pain of the activity? Would not the possibility of excelling in school and eventually
getting a good job benefit more people in the long run and in a more fulfilling way?

Now, one might say that Mill might conclude that studying is always better than playing.
However, one may argue that one also learns useful skills in playing computer games and that
the development of friendship is more important than getting a good job after graduating from
school. Mill must not be interpreted hastily. He is not saying that lower pleasures must always
give way to higher forms of pleasure. He does not envision persons as one dimensional. One
way of looking at the matter is this:
 First, one must ask oneself this question before making the choice; Is there a way to strike a
balance between the two activities such that the importance of experiencing the higher
pleasure is not completely compromise by choosing the other option, the lower pleasure?
 Secondly, if one were really just restricted to choose one activity, one must ask
herself/himself which of the two options one would be truly happy and content in doing
exclusively in the context of being a human person.
 Third, if one were allowed to experience the maximum amount of pleasure derived from
playing online games, he/she is one who is amenable to be consigned to an entire life of just
playing online games than a life of developing his/her intellectual faculties?
 Fourth, would a competent judge who has had considerable experience of the two options,
prefer to have his/her immediate desires fulfilled by lower pleasures than to postpone
his/her gratification for the purpose of reaping the happiness involved in cultivating his/her
faculties? Mill says that a human being whose capacity for enjoyment is low has a greater
chance of having his/her pleasures satisfied than a person predisposed towards
experiencing higher forms of pleasure. The development of one’s capacity for enjoyment
(capacity to appreciate the difference between higher and lower pleasures) is either
inherent in a person or more commonly due to the lack of opportunity to experience the
higher pleasure. Mill does not believe that a person who has had experience of both lower
and higher pleasures would prefer the lower pleasure at the expense of losing the
opportunity to enjoy the higher pleasure.

Mill clarifies this point in this quote:

“Capacity for noble feelings is in most natures very tender plant, easily killed,
not only by hostile influences but by mere want of sustenance; and in the
majority of the young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to
which their position in life has devoted them and the society to which it has
thrown them, are not favorable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise.
Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes because
they have no time or opportunity for indulging them and they addict
themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them,
but because they are the only ones which they are any longer capable of
enjoying. It may be questioned whether anyone who has remained equally
susceptible to both classes of Pleasures ever knowingly and calmly preferred
the lower, though many, in all ages, have broken down in an ineffectual
attempt to combine both.”
Mill presents an important point in his utilitarian theory of morality. He recognizes a person’s
embeddedness in a social, cultural, and historical context that plays a crucial role in his/her
capacity to recognize varying kinds of pleasures. If one is for instance, born and raised in a
society that ultimately favors the cravings and desires of the flesh over other pleasures, then it is
likely that one will have a preference for these experiences since one does not know any better.

Returning to our earlier example, if one lives in a household which does not nurture and
encourage the discipline of studying and learning, it is but commonsensical to assume that his
person is more susceptible to favor feelings which relate to activities that contain in themselves
the prospect of immediate gratification, for instance, playing online games. The fact that most
people associate happiness with sensual gratification and prefers this over other forms, says
something about the culture and values of society itself. A society with systems and institutions
that legitimize and reward a life of excess is likely to produce a citizenry that is insensitive, if not
blind, to a higher calling for humanity.

One of Mill’s most famous quotes runs as follows: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the
pig is of different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”
Happiness according to the Greatest Happiness Principle, must be pursued in direct proportion
to the form of the being which desires it. In other words, a pig prefers pleasure befitting of its
nature and would be clueless to the possibility of experiencing other higher forms precisely
because it is a pig and not a human being. A person, however, has the capacity to realize a
higher form of happiness because his/her nature as a rational being permits him/her to do so. A
fool, therefore, is a person who has no idea that being human allows him/her to experience
wisdom and so he/she relegates his/her existence as comparable to that of a pig’s as it were. In
 other words, Mill is saying that the forms of pleasures that are considered higher, like the
pleasure of gaining wisdom, because they are more difficult to attain and are to a certain extent
more difficult to access, are often times over looked (looked over) in favor of pleasures that are
easier to access and immediately gratifying. Ultimately, one must refer to the verdict of
competent judges who have experienced a wide spectrum of pleasures in order to secure a
guide for moral judgment. He says, “on a question which is best worth having of two pleasures
or which of two modes of existence is the most grateful to the feelings, apart from its moral
attributes and from its consequences, the judgment of those who are qualified by knowledge of
both, or, if they differ, that of the majority among them, must be admitted as final”

One may, therefore, say that in matters of diet, for instance, one ought to seek the opinion of a
person who has experienced both sickness and health to find out whether eating fatty, high-
cholesterol foods is preferable over consuming vegetables and fruits. One who has not known
sickness due to a bad diet cannot have a wise appreciation of how important one’s health over
the satisfaction of one’s palate. If this person, therefore, tells one that experience has taught
him/her the importance of eating a balanced diet, one can more or less be certain that he/she
knows what he/she is talking about and that his/her opinion matters. (relegate – to move into
an inferior position; to demote, to banish).

To restate, the Greatest Happiness Principle, as the ultimate end of action, sponsors the view
that morality is about fostering an existence that is exempt from pain as much as possible and
one that is capable of enjoying pleasures befitting a human person in terms of both quantity and
quality which benefits not just oneself but others as well. If one is in a quandary which option
offers the prospect of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one must, aside from
one’s use of reason, consult the wisdom of those that have experienced a broad range of
pleasure that are considered capable of assessing the value of every alternative.

C. Replies to Objections

1. To the objection that happiness is unattainable

There are some who object to Mill’s propositi on by saying that happiness is unatt ainable.
It is because, there are many things such as poverty, disease, and failure which thwart
one’s att empt at being happy. Mill responds by saying that if his objectors defi ne
happiness as a conti nuity of highly pleasurable excitement, then it is true that such a life
is indeed impossible. Pleasures oft en only last for a certain period. The pleasure derived
from eati ng only last unti l one will experience hunger once more, while the pleasure
derived from being with one’s friends oft en only lasts for as long as one is in good terms
with them. However, Mill says that the life of happiness defi ned in his theory is not a life
of rapture but an existence made up of a few, transitory pains, diff erent pleasures with a
decided predominance of pleasures over pain. It is a kind of happiness which does not
expect from life more than what it can realisti cally provide. He adds that history has
shown us that a sati sfi ed and happy life is mainly composed of a balance between
tranquility and excitement. Those who fi nd no happiness in such a state, he says are
generally those who care for no one but themselves. On one hand, those with no friends
soon see that their selfi sh excitements are essenti ally meaningless in the face of death.
On the other hand, those who have culti vated friendships and have left a lasti ng legacy of
fellow feeling for mankind retain their happiness in any circumstance whether it be in
lively moments or on the eve of death. Another reason why some experience diffi culti es
in being happy is lack of mental culti vati on. A person that has developed and harnessed
one’s mind to fi nd pleasure in the realms of nature, poetry, art, and science conti nually
fi nds sources of joy in his/her life, no matt er the circumstance. Happiness is, therefore,
att ainable if one understands it realisti cally and lives one’s life in solidarity with others
and culti vates one’s deeper capacity to enjoy that which endures in the transitory.

2. To the objecti on that Uti litarian morality is incompati ble with self-sacrifi ce
 Another objecti on to Mill’s theory is that it does not recognize the value of self-
sacrifi ce. Mill answers this objecti on by saying that uti litarianism does recognize the
goodness of self-sacrifi ce which places the welfare of others over and above one’s own
but only to the extent that it is done for the sake of promoti ng the greatest happiness of
the greatest number, and for no other reason is it acceptable other than this. If self-
sacrifi ce is merely done for its own sake, then uti litarianism sees it as a waste. The kind
of sacrifi ce Mill fi nds reasonable is the kind which produces consequences that benefi t
more people have other than oneself. He reiterates that uti litarianism not only promotes
the happiness of the agent but of all concerned who potenti ally experience the
consequences of the agent’s act. A person must be as imparti al as possible in weighing
his/her happiness against that of others. He ascribes to Jesus Christ’s teaching to love
one’s neighbor as oneself, expressing how uti litarianism values the other person as much
as oneself. In an ideal setti ng, the interest of an individual is achieved in harmony with
the good of the whole society. Uti litarianism upholds the belief that a truly moral person
always tries to incorporate the good of others in every decision he/she makes. Thus, in
the case of self-sacrifi ce, it is morally acceptable so long as it is done for the sake of the
good of the greatest number.

3. To the objecti on that social concern is a rare moti ve for acti on

The last objecti on Mill deals with in his treati se is the objecti on relati ng to the
questi on whether people actually have society in mind whenever they choose a course of
acti on. For Mill, a disti ncti on must be made between the moti ves and the consequences
of one’s acti ons with respect to which of the two is the basis for judging an act to be
moral or not. From his perspecti ve, it really is too much to expect that people always act
from the moti ve of their duty towards others. Most acti ons are not done for this reason.
One must disti nguish between the rule of acti on and the moti ve. If one saves a fellow
human person from being tricked by a conman for the sake of gaining favors from the act
and not simply because one is moti vated by duty to look aft er one’s neighbor, the
morality of the act is not diminished in the least. In other words, from the uti litarian
perspecti ve, the moti ve has nothing to do with the morality of the acti on. Of course, it is
ideal to always have the good in mind in every decision, but as far as morality is
concerned, the act itself is moral so long as it promotes the good of the greatest number.
The moti ve says something about the kind of person doing the act, but it does not say
anything about the morality of the acti on one decides to undertake. In additi on, Mill says
that a great number of acti ons are meant to benefi t individuals rather than the greater
majority. Given the fact that not everyone is in a positi on to have one’s acti ons directly
aff ect the happiness of the whole in terms of public uti lity, Mill asserts that one needs
only att end to the good of the few who shall potenti ally reap the benefi ts of one’s
acti ons. In short, one cannot fault someone for having a small sphere of infl uence for
this does not curtail her capacity to sti ll put the welfare of others (no matt er how few)
over his/hers.

Thought Experiment – The Trolley Problem

A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if
the trolley proceeds on its present course. Ben is standing next to a large switch that can
divert the trolley onto a different track. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to
divert the trolley onto another track that only has one worker on it. If Ben diverts the trolley
onto the other track, this one worker will die, but the other five workers will be saved.
This is a classic ethical dilemma formulated by Philippa Foot in 1967. Examine and reflect
on this scenario. What would be the moral course of action for a utilitarian in this case?
D. The Ultimate Sanction

Although external sanctions like those that emanate from social and supernatural sources enforce
the utilitarian principle, they do not compel one to follow it. By themselves, they cannot bind persons
fully to any moral principle because they are only truly bound to a principle if they feel themselves that
they have abide by it. Ultimately, according to Mill, it is man’s “feeling for humanity” that constitutes
the ultimate sanction of utility. This is the internal sanction of the principle of utility.

One of the external sanctions that provide the impetus for moral conduct is one’s fear of
displeasing God (if one believes in a God). A believer’s moral compass is oftentimes is determined by
his/her desire to please his/her creator, for he/she feels that he/she owes Him this much, seeing as He is
considered to be the source of everything that exists. If one trusts in the goodness of God, then those
who think that a good act is that which promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number must
also believe that this is what God approves. The other external sanction is the fear of disapproval from
other people. Mill says that such a fear is allayed when one understands that one’s actions coincide
with the desire of others, so long as one estimates that one’s action contributes to the general
happiness. If one does what is right because one fears that he/she will be punished by society in
whatever way, be it legal (fined, imprisoned) or extra-legal (social ostracization, marginalization), Mill
finds that such a motive is compatible with the doctrine of utility for it essentially aims for the happiness
of the greatest number. Such a motive takes into account the opinions of others with respect to what is
advantageous or disadvantageous for them before one acts and may, therefore, be seen as coherent
with the principle of utility.

Mill then proceeds to explain that although external sanctions do promote the welfare of the whole,
it is still the internal sanction of conscience that is considered as the ultimate sanction of morality. This
is the feeling associated with one’s violation of duty towards others when one selfishly looks after one’s
happiness exclusively. Conscience is the internalization of the external sanctions of morality that feels
remorse each time one acts without considering first the effect or consequences of one’s actions in
other people’s lives. This feeling of fellowship with other people is what ultimately drives one to
persevere to be moral. As a social being, the human person has the ability to gauge the morality of
his/her action in the context of preserving the harmony between his/her pleasures and the pleasures of
others. In the end, one can only sleep well at night when he/she has a clear conscience, that is, when
one is certain that he/she did everything to promote not just his/her own happiness, but that of
everyone’s.

CONCLUSION

Utilitarianism espouses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which states that the action is right when
they promote the happiness of the greatest number and wrong if they cause the opposite. The principle
of utility judges the morality of actions based on consequences. If an action leads to the happiness of
more persons, then that action is considered moral. However, Mill makes an important distinction
between the quantity and quality of happiness or pleasure. He holds that utilitarianism is not only
interested in promoting the happiness of the most number of persons, but it also takes into account the
kind or quality of happiness an action is likely to produce. In other words, if one aims to do the right
thing, one also has to take into account what kind of happiness one’s action will bring into the lives of
others. Pleasures of the mind are considered higher than the pleasures of the flesh. With respect to
matters of deliberation on what forms of pleasure are to be regarded as higher than others, Mill points
to the opinions of competent judges who have both knowledge and experience of a wide spectrum of
pleasures which make them capable of truly appreciating the difference and varying degrees and
qualities of pleasures. The aim of utilitarianism, therefore, is to promote a moral way of life that
considers the welfare of the community and not just one’s own, such that Mill declares that it is the
internal sanction of conscience which serves as the ultimate sanction of the principle of utility. To think
of the consequences of one’s actions (both quantitatively and qualitatively) in the context of the
community is to be moral. To contribute to the pleasure of others and to decrease the measure of pain
that afflicts them is one’s realization of a truly moral life.
 So far, you have learned moral theories that are Western in their origin. In the next section, you will
be introduced to how the East envisions a moral way of life. Gandhi’s dictum of non-violence, Buddha’s
path to enlightenment, and Confucian ethics are all discussed in the hope of expanding and deepening
your historical appreciation of moral questions.

Exercise: Reaction Paper (One-page reaction paper, font 12, double space)

Study Questions:

1. What is the Greatest Happiness Principle and how is it different from Kantian deontology?
2. How is Mill’s version of utilitarianism similar to and different from that of Jeremy Bentham?
3. How does Mill respond to the accusation that utilitarianism is a “swinish” doctrine?
4. Why does Mill distinguish different pleasures? What is the criterion for judging whether a
particular pleasure is higher in quality as compared to other forms of pleasure?
5. What does Mill mean when he claims that motives have nothing to do with the morality of an
action?
6. What are some objections to the utilitarian doctrine of morality? How does Mill respond to
each?
7. What is the ultimate sanction of the principle of utility?

Answers:

1. What is the Greatest Happiness Principle and how is it different from Kantian deontology?