Utilitarianism

J.S. Mill
 Value Theory (Ethics)
• Generally three areas of ethical investigation for value
theory
• 1) Meta-Ethics
• 2) Normative Ethics
• 3) Applied Ethics
• Utilitarianism is generally a work of normative ethics,
though it often exhibits meta-ethical concerns
• Later we will be looking at a utilitarian example of
applied ethics (Singer)
 J.S. Mill
• Important liberal philosopher in the nineteenth century
• Son of James Mill, a political economist, who was also
friends with Jeremy Bentham
• Aside from being an important value theorist and political
philosopher, he was also active in political and economic
reform in Britain
• His book On Liberty, which is a way to conceive of his ethics
being applied to the sphere of good governance, is one of
the fundamental works of liberal philosophy and greatly
influenced the modern legal systems of the UK, the US, and
Canada
 The Bentham Background
• Before Mill wrote this treatise, utilitarianism had already been
proposed as an ethical system by Jeremy Bentham and others

• Bentham based the system simply on “hedonism” and argued

that the only thing that was intrinsically good was pleasure
– what is meant by intrinsically good?

• In order to understand how to make sense of what type of

pleasure (which means, simultaneously, the avoidance of pain)
was the best, and thus how to make value judgments between
different goods,
• Bentham devised a concept called “the
hedonistic calculus” in which a hierarchy of
pleasure could be derived by figuring out what
pleasure led to the least amount of pain, was
the longest lasting, etc.
• Due to the potential simplicity of an ethical
system based on this unqualified notion of
“pleasure” utilitarianism was attacked as
simplistic and anti-human
• Mill’s work attempts to clear up these
problems
 Approaching Ethics Critically
• Like many philosophers, Mill was interested in
demystifying ethics and providing a rational
system that could explain how to make moral
judgments
• Following Bentham, Mill endorsed
“utilitarianism” as such a rational value theory
although, arguably, his work was more
sophisticated and influential than Bentham’s
• “There are few circumstances among those which make up the
present condition of human knowledge, more unlike what might have
been expected, or more significant of the backward state in which
speculation on the most important subjects still lingers, than the little
progress which has been made in the decision of the controversy
respecting the criterion of right and wrong. From the dawn of
philosophy, the question concerning the […] foundation of morality,
has been accounted the main problem in speculative thought, has
occupied the most gifted intellects, and divided them into sects and
schools, carrying on a vigorous warfare against one another. And after
more than two thousand years the same discussions continue,
philosophers are still ranged under the same contending banners,
and neither thinkers nor mankind at large seem nearer to being
unanimous on the subject, than when the youth Socrates listened to
the old Protagoras, and asserted (if Plato's dialogue be grounded on a
real conversation) the theory of utilitarianism against the popular
morality of the so-called sophist.”
• From this general problem of rationally understanding
ethics, Mill derives the following principle based on
how truths have been discovered in other disciplines:
– “All action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to
suppose, must take their whole character and colour from the end to which they are
subservient. When we engage in a pursuit, a clear and precise conception of what we
are pursuing would seem to be the first thing we need, instead of the last we are to
look forward to.”

• P1: The truths ultimately treated as “first principles” of

science are those that are discovered at the end of
scientific investigation
• P2: We approach ethics/morality in a scientific manner
• C: The “first principles” of ethics/morality will have
something to do with ends
• It is unscientific to think of moral laws as a
priori
• Moral laws are discovered through
investigation  again, they become “first
principles” at the end of a process of
investigation
• Like scientific truth it is wrong to think of
particular moral truths as immutable; they
need to be open to the future
• Instead we should think of immutable moral
axioms (a methodology for understanding
morality) upon which we can judge particular
moral truths in every context
• This axiom will have something to do with
“teleological reasoning” since this is the basis
upon which the sciences are founded
• (Note that Mill attacks Kant, whose value
theory we will be looking at next class)
 Intrinsic goods
• Need to find an axiom, or general principle,
upon which such a teleological system can be
built
• Mill uses the concept of “intrinsic good”
• Why is medical science good? Because it is
instrumental in making people healthy. Why
is being healthy good?
• We can keep asking these questions but at
some point we must arrive at a first principle
of intrinsic goodness: happiness.
• This is meant to be a more sophisticated
understanding of intrinsic goods than
Bentham’s unqualified pleasure
• Mill’s notion of intrinsic goods and happiness
is derived from Aristotle, though not precisely
the same, as we shall see in a couple classes
 The Principle of Utility
• Utility = “greatest happiness principle”
• “actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness.”
• The principle of utility: the greatest happiness for
the greatest number of people
• This is generally understood, by contemporary
value theorists, to be a theory of
“consequentialism”
 Why Utility?
• “According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, as above explained, the
ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are
desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people),
is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in
enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the
rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who,
in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of
self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of
comparison. This, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human
action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which may accordingly be
defined, the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of
which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent
possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the
nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation.”
 Objections
• Mill anticipates counter-arguments
• Happiness is not the rational purpose of human life and
humans can do without happiness  how might this
objection be written in standard form?

• P1: The intrinsic good must be related to the rational

purpose of human existence
• P2: Happiness is not the rational purpose of human
existence
• C: Happiness is not an intrinsic good
• But what would be an intrinsic good if it is not
happiness?
• Would humans ever be content with a
moderate share of happiness?
• As soon as we ask about what makes humans
“content” we are talking, according to Mill,
about happiness
• But what is meant by happiness/pleasure for
Mill?
 The “contented pig” example
• If the intrinsic good is pleasure/happiness, then
wouldn’t humans be fine living like pigs?
• Pigs seem happy rolling about in the mud all day, so
utilitarianism’s conception of the good seems to imply
a similar state of goodness
– P1: The only intrinsic good is happiness
– P2: Pigs are happy rolling around in the mud
– C: Humans ought to live like pigs
• What may be wrong with this objection to
utilitarianism?
• The contented pig objection is a “straw-
person” fallacy since it misrepresents what
Mill means by “happiness”
• The contented pig objection might be
equivocation over the term “pleasure”
• The contented pig objection might be a false
analogy by comparing pigs to humans.
• (should note here that Mill refers frequently to
Epicurus, an ancient philosopher)
 Happiness according to Mill
• Happiness is not simply unqualified pleasure
• Must take into account qualities of pleasure
rather than simply quantity
• There is a distinction between higher and lower
pleasures for humans
• Human happiness will not be the same as the
happiness of the pig: we will not be content
rolling around in the mud; we will not find this
pleasurable
• Those acquainted with both higher and lower
pleasures will always find more happiness
engaging with higher pleasures
• Mill thinks that it is simply the case that no human
will be content finding their happiness in the lower
pleasures
• “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 a
different opinion, it is because they only know
their own side of the question. The other party to
the comparison knows both sides.”
 Greatest Happiness
• Of course, it is not simply our own personal
happiness that matters but the happiness of
others, particularly the happiness of the
greatest number of people
• Mill argues that the golden rule is an early
expression of the principle of utility
• Utilitarian ethics is about multiplying utility for
the greatest amount of individuals
• According to utilitarianism, the moral worth of
an action is decided, in the last instance, by
the amount of happiness it promotes for the
largest amount of individuals
• An act is thus moral if you have to do
something that undermines a small amount of
individual happiness in order to promote
greater happiness
• Trolly example
• Here we can obviously treat utilitarianism as
an “ends justifies the means” doctrine
• Hence the charge against utilitarianism, which
Mill addresses, that it “renders men cold and
unsympathizing; that it chills their moral
feelings towards individuals; that it makes
them regard only the dry and hard
consideration of the consequences of actions,
not taking into their moral estimate the
qualities from which those actions emanate.”
• Why would this be?
• How does Mill respond?
 Primary and Secondary Principles
• While Mill claims that the principle of utility is the
primary principle of ethics, he also speaks of
secondary principles
• These secondary principles, simply claim that, all
things being even, there are solid general rules not to
think only according to the consequences
• This is because these rules have, at some point, been
established because of utilitarian thinking. These are
rules that, all things being equal, were established
because they promote utility
• The primary principle, though, should guide
the way we think about these rules when we
are faced with moral dilemmas

• Act versus Rule utilitarianism.

• On Liberty is an example of rule utilitarianism

• “If utility is the ultimate source of moral obligations, utility may be
invoked to decide between them when their demands are
incompatible. Though the application of the standard may be
difficult, it is better than none at all: while in other systems, the
moral laws all claiming independent authority, there is no
common umpire entitled to interfere between them; their claims
to precedence one over another rest on little better than
sophistry, and unless determined, as they generally are, by the
unacknowledged influence of considerations of utility, afford a free
scope for the action of personal desires and partialities. We must
remember that only in these cases of conflict between secondary
principles is it requisite that first principles should be appealed to.
There is no case of moral obligation in which some secondary
principle is not involved; and if only one, there can seldom be any
real doubt which one it is, in the mind of any person by whom the
principle itself is recognized.”
 Sanctions
• What are the motives or source of obligation of
utilitarianism?
• That is: why should I act as a utilitarian?
• The problem can be summed up as the
following: if the only intrinsic good is happiness,
then why should I act in such a way to promote
others’ happiness rather than focus only on my
own? How does this ethical ought come into
play?
• External sanctions: the hope of favour and the
fear of displeasure from others
• Internal sanctions: we naturally feel pain if we
fail to act as utilitarians  shame and guilt at
not having promoted the best happiness when
we could have (“conscience”)
• the ultimate sanction is the subjective feeling in
our own minds, and since our subjective feelings
naturally coincide with the utilitarian concept of
happiness, then there are good reasons to act
according to the principle of utility
• “But there is this basis of powerful natural sentiment; and this it is which, when once the
general happiness is recognized as the ethical standard, will constitute the strength of the
utilitarian morality. This firm foundation is that of the social feelings of mankind; the desire
to be in unity with our fellow creatures, which is already a powerful principle in human
nature, and happily one of those which tend to become stronger, even without express
inculcation, from the influences of advancing civilization. The social state is at once so
natural, so necessary, and so habitual to man, that, except in some unusual circumstances
or by an effort of voluntary abstraction, he never conceives himself otherwise than as a
member of a body; and this association is riveted more and more, as mankind are further
removed from the state of savage independence. Any condition, therefore, which is
essential to a state of society, becomes more and more an inseparable part of every
person's conception of the state of things which he is born into, and which is the destiny of
a human being. Now, society between human beings, except in the relation of master and
slave, is manifestly impossible on any other footing than that the interests of all are to be
consulted. Society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of
all are to be regarded equally. And since in all states of civilization, every person, except an
absolute monarch, has equals, every one is obliged to live on these terms with somebody;
and in every age some advance is made towards a state in which it will be impossible to live
permanently on other terms with anybody. In this way people grow up unable to conceive
as possible to them a state of total disregard of other people's interests.”

• Do you agree?
 Problems
• What might be some problems with utilitarianism?
• Is Mill correct that happiness is the only intrinsic good?
Why or why not?
• Is Mill correct that the principle of utility is the best way
to approach values? Why or why not?
• Does Mill provide good reasons as to why we should act
according to the principle of utility?
• Can you think of a case where you would find utilitarian
thinking problematic? Would you be a moral coward
for suggesting that this is the case?