John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism
Reminder: Major Ethical Theories
Deontological ethics
Kantian ethics (a brand of deontological ethics)
Consequentialism
Utilitarianism (a brand of consequentialism)
Reminders on Ethical Approaches
Consequentialist ethics, like deontological ethics, focuses on the choices we make, not the kind of person we are.
Deontological ethics:
Some actions are impermissible under any circumstances due to the dignity and intrinsic value of human beings.
Deontology is about duty and adhering to fundamental rules.
Consequentialism:
The morality of actions is determined by the importance of their consequences.
Introduction to John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873):
19th-century British philosopher, economist, and feminist thinker.
Known for utilitarianism, a brand of consequentialism.
Wrote Utilitarianism (1861/1863), published almost 80 years after Kant’s Groundwork.
Kant is a reference point in Mill's writing.
Mill’s Criticism of Other Moral Theories
Mill argues that there has been little progress in deciding the criterion of right and wrong.
He suggests that the consistency in moral beliefs is due to the unrecognized influence of the principle of utility.
Mill contends that people's views are influenced by the effects of things on their happiness.
The principle of utility, or the greatest happiness principle, has significantly shaped moral doctrines, even among those who reject it.
Happiness is crucial in our lives, and philosophers are aware of this, yet they attempt to minimize its importance in moral theories.
Mill believes happiness should be acknowledged as the most important component of our moral life when building moral theories.
Mill shifts focus from principles/moral laws to actions and their consequences, moving away from Kant's focus on intentions.
Mill targets intuitionists and inductivists:
Intuitionists: moral principles are evident a priori.
Inductivists: right and wrong are matters of observation and experience.
Mill’s Criticism of Kant
Two main criticisms:
Kant has not properly addressed the role of happiness in morality.
Kant’s arguments and account of the moral law are not fully convincing and haven't properly addressed why the consequences of our actions matter, morally speaking.
Kant believes consequences are irrelevant in deciding whether an action is morally good or bad; acting from duty alone matters.
Mill disagrees, stating that Kant only shows that the universal adoption of certain rules would have undesirable consequences.
Example the case of the murderer at the door.
The Utilitarian Theory
Mill proposes that utility is the fundamental principle of morality and should help us determine right and wrong.
Utility refers to happiness:
Actions are right as they promote happiness and wrong as they produce the reverse of happiness.
Happiness = pleasure and the absence of pain; unhappiness = pain and the lack of pleasure.
Utilitarianism as a Moral Theory/Theory of Life
Actions are morally good if they promote happiness (pleasure and the absence of pain), aiming at the maximization of pleasure.
pleasure + \text{freedom from pain = the only things that are desirable as ends}
Everything desirable is so either for the pleasure inherent in it or as means to promote pleasure and prevent pain.
The utilitarian standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness but the greatest amount of happiness altogether.
Common Objection and Mill’s Response
Objection: Utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy only of pigs because it's all about pleasure, similar to orgies, binge-eating, and binge-drinking.
Mill's response: the quality of pleasures affects their value; maximizing pleasure means considering quality and quantity.
Some pleasures are more desirable and valuable than others.
Happiness is not equivalent to contentment or satisfying every pleasure.
Intellectual pleasures are more valuable than bodily pleasures due to our sense of dignity as human beings and our recognition that higher pleasures are superior once experienced.
We decide which pleasures are more desirable through consensus among those who have experienced them all (the most competent judges).
Pleasure P1 is more desirable than pleasure P2 if almost all people who have experienced both give a decided preference to P1, irrespective of any feeling that they ought to prefer it.
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
Further Elaboration on Mill’s Claim
Mill claims that people who can enjoy higher pleasures are happier.
The test of quality and the rule for measuring it against quantity are the preferences of those best equipped to make the comparison, equipped by their experience and habits of self-consciousness and self-observation.
The greatest happiness of all is the standard of morality.
Example: utilitarianism and global poverty
Poverty and disease can be eliminated or lessened; most of the world's great positive evils are removable.
Poverty, in any sense implying suffering, could be completely extinguished by the wisdom of society combined with the good sense and generosity of individuals.
Disease could be indefinitely reduced in scope by good physical and moral education and proper control of noxious influences (air and water pollution).
Science promises more direct conquests over disease.
Question: can one sacrifice themselves for saving others?
Answer: we must ponder (very carefully) the consequences for the greatest happiness of all.
Only in an imperfect world does sacrificing one's own happiness best serve the happiness of others.
Readiness to make such a sacrifice is the highest virtue in an imperfect world.
Here are the key highlights and ideas from the provided notes, followed by a mix of question types to assess understanding:
Key Highlights and Ideas:
Ethical Theories Overview:
Deontological Ethics (Kantian ethics): Focuses on duty and adhering to fundamental rules, emphasizing that some actions are impermissible under any circumstances due to human dignity.
Consequentialism (Utilitarianism): Focuses on the morality of actions determined by the importance of their consequences.
John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism:
Mill's utilitarianism is a brand of consequentialism.
Mill criticizes other moral theories for not properly addressing the role of happiness.
Mill shifts focus from principles/moral laws to actions and their consequences.
Mill's Criticism of Kant:
Kant has not adequately addressed the role of happiness in morality.
Kant's arguments do not convincingly explain why consequences matter morally.
Mill argues consequences are important, disagreeing with Kant’s emphasis on duty alone.
Utilitarian Theory:
Utility is the fundamental principle of morality.
Actions are right if they promote happiness (pleasure and the absence of pain).
The utilitarian standard aims for the greatest amount of happiness altogether, not just the individual’s.
Addressing Objections to Utilitarianism:
Mill argues that utilitarianism is not merely a doctrine of pleasure fit for pigs.
The quality of pleasures affects their value; intellectual pleasures are more valuable than bodily pleasures.
Competent judges (those who have experienced different pleasures) determine which pleasures are more desirable.
Further Elaboration on Mill’s Claims:
People who can enjoy higher pleasures are happier.
The greatest happiness of all is the standard of morality.
Utilitarianism can address global issues like poverty and disease.
Sacrificing one's own happiness to serve others is virtuous in an imperfect world, but the consequences must be carefully considered.
Questions:
Multiple Choice:
Which ethical theory posits that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences?
(a) Deontology
(b) Utilitarianism
(c) Kantian Ethics
(d) Virtue Ethics
Short Answer:
According to Mill, what is the fundamental principle of morality?
Medium-Length Answer:
Explain Mill’s criticism of Kant’s ethical theory. How does Mill argue that Kant fails to adequately address the role of happiness in morality?
Medium-Length Answer:
* How does Mill respond to the objection that utilitarianism is a doctrine fit only for pigs? Explain the role of pleasure and the concept of competent judges in his response.Longer Answer (Application of Ethical Theories to an Ethical Dilemma):
Describe a real-world ethical dilemma (e.g., a company deciding whether to offshore jobs to save costs, a doctor deciding whether to disclose a patient’s terminal diagnosis). Apply both Kantian ethics and utilitarianism to analyze the dilemma. What would each theory suggest is the right course of action, and why? Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each approach in this context.
ANSWER
Multiple Choice: (b) Utilitarianism
Short Answer: According to Mill, the fundamental principle of morality is utility, which refers to actions that promote happiness (pleasure and the absence of pain).
Medium-Length Answer: Mill criticizes Kant for not adequately addressing the role of happiness in morality and for not providing convincing arguments about why the consequences of our actions matter morally. Mill argues that Kant focuses solely on duty and ignores the importance of consequences. Mill believes that Kant only demonstrates that the universal adoption of certain rules would have undesirable consequences rather than showing why actions are inherently wrong.
Medium-Length Answer: Mill responds to the objection that utilitarianism is a doctrine fit only for pigs by arguing that the quality of pleasures matters. He distinguishes between higher (intellectual) and lower (bodily) pleasures, asserting that intellectual pleasures are more valuable because of our sense of dignity as human beings. Mill introduces the concept of 'competent judges'—those who have experienced both types of pleasures—and suggests that we determine which pleasures are more desirable through consensus among these judges. Thus, maximizing pleasure involves considering both quality and quantity, not just satisfying every base desire.
Longer Answer (Application of Ethical Theories to an Ethical Dilemma):
Ethical Dilemma: Offshoring Jobs
A company is deciding whether to offshore jobs to save costs. This would benefit shareholders and potentially lower prices for consumers but would result in job losses in the home country.
Kantian Ethics Analysis:
Action: Offshoring jobs.
Categorical Imperative: Kantian ethics focuses on whether the action treats individuals as ends in themselves and not merely as means. The company must consider whether offshoring jobs respects the dignity and autonomy of its employees.
Duty: The company has a duty to treat employees with respect and not use them merely as a means to an end. Offshoring jobs could be seen as using employees as a means to increase profits, which violates this duty.
Right Course of Action: According to Kantian ethics, the company should not offshore jobs if it primarily benefits the company at the expense of the employees' well-being and dignity. It should seek alternatives that respect the rights and autonomy of all stakeholders.
Strengths: Provides a strong emphasis on the intrinsic value and rights of individuals.
Weaknesses: Can be inflexible, as it may not allow for considerations of overall welfare or potential benefits to a larger group.
Utilitarianism Analysis:
Action: Offshoring jobs.
Consequences: The company must calculate the overall happiness produced by the action. This involves weighing the benefits (increased profits, lower consumer prices) against the harms (job losses, community impact).
Greatest Happiness Principle: Utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. The company needs to determine whether the overall happiness increases or decreases when considering all stakeholders.
Right Course of Action: Utilitarianism might suggest that offshoring jobs is acceptable if the overall increase in happiness (due to economic benefits) outweighs the decrease in happiness (due to job losses). This requires a thorough cost-benefit analysis, considering the magnitude and distribution of happiness.
Strengths: Considers the overall welfare and can adapt to different situations based on potential outcomes.
Weaknesses: The calculation can be complex and may lead to justifying actions that harm certain individuals or groups if the overall outcome is deemed positive.
Conclusion:
Kantian ethics would likely oppose offshoring jobs, emphasizing the duty to respect the rights and dignity of employees. Utilitarianism might support offshoring if the overall economic benefits outweigh the harms, though this requires a careful and comprehensive analysis of all consequences. The ethical dilemma highlights the tension between principles (Kantian ethics) and outcomes (utilitarianism) in decision-making.