john stuart mill's utilitarianism

term

eval

qualitative: not merely the amount of pleasure/pain. we can make judgements about which pleasures are greater in kind, not just degree, as outlined below

This answers the criticism that sadistic guards might be right to torture someone for pleasure – theirs is a worthless sort of pleasure. This also moves away from hedonism.

higher n lower pleasures: ‘better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’ Intellectual pleasures were seen by Mill to be superior to sensual pleasures.

This improves Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus. Reading a good book doesn’t just give me more pleasure than playing Angry Birds – it gives me better pleasure. However, some people accuse Mill of being a snob, and others of being entirely subjective.

competent judge: “On a question which is the best worth having of two pleasures, the judgment of those who are qualified by knowledge of both must be admitted as final.”

People disagree about different pleasures – some would choose a long walk, others to sit an watch football. It’s not clear that competent judges would agree with each other at all. This may explain why modern Utilitarians tend to be Preference Utilitarians.

Happiness: Mill developed Aristotle’s concept of ‘eudaimonia’. Happiness includes a richness of life and complexity of activity – a variety of pleasures leads to a better quality of happiness.

A point missed out on by Bentham. My first sweet gives much more pleasure than my tenth. A really happy life means one that is full of different pleasures. Aristotle thought Virtues were good in themselves, but Mill says they were only a means to the end of Happiness, which is what everyone desires.

Rule Utilitarian: “Act in accordance with those rules which, if generally followed, would provide the greatest general balance of pleasure over pain.” (although as Mill said it was sometimes necessary to break the rules, some label him a Soft Rule Utilitarian)

This is much more practical than Act Util. Also in line with how society works. However, Mill says "...to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the necessary food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate, the only qualified medical practitioner." How do you know if breaking a rule will lead to the greater good?

Liberty: - “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”. This goes with the Harm Principle: if someone is causing no harm to others, they should be free to do as they choose.

This could be seen as saying that having freedom will lead to a happier society. Some say this goes against the theory, because letting someone use drugs and harm themselves will lead to less happiness for that person and therefore less overall happiness. It isn’t clear that individual liberty is compatible with utilitarianism.

Justice: Treating everyone as having equal value, and trying to bring about the greater good, is "the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice."

This answers a criticism that Utilitarianism is unfair – e.g. that it would allow us to torture an innocent person if it saved hundreds of lives. However, some people think Mill is unsuccessful, and that torturing innocent people is wrong even if it leads to ‘distributive justice’