Reading : Western Philosophy VII.6 "Happiness as the Foundation of Morality"

While the Greeks were concerned with the question "How should I live?", modern philosophy focuses on the somewhat less ambitious question "which acts are right and which are wrong?". Mill discusses this question, but does not go so far as to say what "the best life" is.

Utilitarinism says that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness". We might consider two types :

1. "According to act-utilitarianism, it is the value of the consequences of the particular act that counts when determining whether the act is right. Bentham's theory is act-utilitarian, and so is that of J.J.C. Smart." reference
2. "Instead of looking at the consequences of a particular act, rule-utilitarianism determines the rightness of an act by .. finding the value of the consequences of following a particular rule." reference. From Mill's use of the phrase "tends to" in the opening paragraph, we can conclude that he subscribes to this view.

Mill says the "general happiness principle" needs some qualification, but is basically sound.

Criticism: this supposes that humans are no better than swine. Answer: humans are capable of achieving more noble types of pleasure than swine: intellectual pleasures are held in "much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation". It may also be argued that intellectual pleasures have greater value because they have better long-term effects.

Mill says that intellectual pleasures are of a different, and superior kind or quality - i.e. not just better because of their long-term effects. He says it would be absurd that "the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone".

How to assess the relative quality of two different pleasures? The best is the "one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it". He says "it is an unquestionable fact" that in such cases the choice will be for "the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties". "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, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question".

Two possibles criticisms of this:

1. If it's true that someone in this position would choose the "higher" pleasure, does that prove it's better in the utilitarian sense?
2. while Socrates may prefer to be dissatisfied than a satisfied fool, can we really say that he knows what being a satisfied fool is like? I.e. can we find people "who have experience of both" sides?

Utilitarian standard "is not the agent's own happiness, but of all concerned". Mill says that social policy should be formed in a way that leads to the greatest happiness of the society, and also to educate everyone to understand that there is "an indissoluble association between his own happiness and the good of the whole".

Criticism: this is too much to ask; if each of our actions is performed to effect the greatest happiness in society, we'd be giving away all our money, not taking holidays, not going to the pub, etc.. Mill doesn't provide an answer to this question.

Criticism: this requires that "people shall always act from the inducement of promoting general interests of society" - i.e. that people must be motivated by a feeling of duty. Mill answers this by saying that 99% of actions are done from other motives, and this isn't a problem, if the result of those actions is greater happiness. Acts performed for the wrong reason may still be morally good acts if they promote happiness; "he who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid" - i.e. it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Criticism: it's not possible to consider the effects of every action on the whole world. Mill says that "the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned".

Criticism: Expediency says that we promote greater happiness by telling a white lie than telling the truth. So does utilitarianism advocate lying in some situations? Mill says:

• the habit of veracity is worthwile, because generally speaking it leads to greater happiness: "cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity is one of the most useful"
• there are exceptional situations, which must be evaluated on a case by case basis. But any exception "may not extend itself beyond the need, and may have the least possible effect in weakening reliance on veracity"
• utilitarianism is not concerned just with immediate happiness resulting from individual acts, but with the cumulative long term effects

Criticism: it would be impractical to base every decision on what leads to the greatest happiness. Mill says though that we have the whole of human history to teach us.

weekly paragraph

References

An online edition of Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill