Mill's Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill was around at a similar sort of time to Bentham. He was somewhat of a child prodigy and was arguably the greatest British philosopher of the 19th century working for the East India Company and as a Member of Parliament. His works relating to utilitarianism were collected as a series of articles in 1863.

Mill maintained that the well being of an individual is of the utmost importance. However, whilst accpeting Bentham's principle of utility he was concerned that it was a purely quantitative measure (as discussed in the previous post) rather than qualitative. He famously stated;

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

He therefore came up with the concept of Higher & Lower Pleasures which categorised pleasure and made some more desirable or of more worth than others. He also stated that pleasures of the mind were of greater value than pleasures of the body. In this way Mill's utilitarianism is more in keeping with religious, in particular christian, teachings aboult self-sacrifice and how relinquishing your own pleasure for the benefit of others creates the same idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This version of utilitarianism may also be described as RULE.

Utilitarianism acts as an umbrella term for many different variations. The two most prominent are ACT and RULE. The main difference between the two is their ideology over what may be classed as good. Bentham's HEDONIC utilitarianism is more in keeping with ACT as it maintains a teleological argument of the end justifying the means. Thus an ACT utilitarian has the benefit of flexibility. RULE utilitarianism on the other hand expresses a disregard for such flexibility and believes in a more deontological approach that states the end does not necessarily justify the means. The means are therefore questionable regardless of how much pleasure is created. Some other features of RULE are in how one must obey rules/the law and therefore society's happiness before thinking of your own.

Mill's utilitarianism is therefore more of the RULE branch as he begins to lay the foundations of distinguishing pleasure to ensure that society as a whole has a rule base in which to live their lives. It is therefore arguably QUANTITATIVE as well as QUALITATIVE and may be described as an answer to the flaws in Bentham's as it overcomes some of the implications set down by such flexibility.

BENEFITS OF MILL'S UTILITARIANISM:

Viability - Mill's utilitarianism enables society to live within the confines of the law and yet still aim for the basic principle of utility and the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It is therefore more realistic as it removes some of the flexibility of Bentham's theory.

Quality - Quality of pleasure was disregarded in Bentham's utilitarianism with all pleasure being generalised as good. In this way Mill further aids people in living a good life, showing preference to the arts etc than pleasures such as eating.

CRITICISMS OF MILL'S UTILITARIANISM:

Inflexibility - Whilst we have discussed the implications of too much flexibility, lack of it means that in situations that require breaking the law or society's set rules a RULE utilitarian would be unable to do so as laws take priority, regardless of whether following them causes ultimate pain. For example, if lying is breaking the law or such set rules but in doing so you would be saving a life - is it viable for a RULE utilitarian to disregard saving a person's life in order to maintain a strict moral fabric? In this way inflexibility shows how RULE utilitarianism may be unrealistic.

Society over Family - In keeping with the law coming first RULE utilitarianism seems to disregard basic primitive instincts people feel towards their family, the maternal instinct for example which in certain situations would hinder a person's moral decisions as nature takes over. Should this person be then punished for thinking of one person's happiness over society?