Utilitarianism I:
Mills starts by addressing the issue of crisis in moral thinking. He finds that people have a hard time coming to a general agreement as to what right and wrong are based on. He argues this foundation is needed in order for morality to have significance or validity. If one where to measure where “good” ends, we would have to look at where “bad” begins. It begs the question is not only academically but ethically: what clearly defines the moral standard and is it “right”? Mills use utilitarianism or the Happiness theory as a possible solution to the morality problem.
Side bar: I thought this was interesting in chapter I of the Utilitarianism, Mills points out morality’s purpose. Stating that the understanding of morality must be convincing for it to fulfill its purpose. Take lying for instance. We view lying to be morally wrong, people should always tell the truth or be honest. But what if one person’s lie could keep 3 others from telling a lie? Would the first lie be justified or not? The answer would depend on one’s moral belief on what is best for the world.
Utilitarianism II:
Mills provides a definition for utilitarianism. Mills introduces utility as a basis of human desire and foundation for morality. Stating that “Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (pain).” Meaning that morality is determined by the greatest happiness principle, moral action is dictated by pursing the happiness of one individual as well as the whole happiness of the society. Later in the chapter, Mills discusses the quality or value of pleasures. He argues that utility is not just a measurements of feeling or experiencing pleasure but that there a multiple versions of pleasure that can only be dictated as higher qualities of pleasure by those who have broad experiences. Stating all experiences or actions cannot be judged be one but the variety of said experiences. Mills does not really address whether one’s pleasure is superior to another.
Does Mill avoid the “paradox of hedonism? “Is utilitarianism a “pig philosophy?” How does Mill explain the fact that some people choose lower pleasures over higher pleasures? Do you agree with his assessment?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that Hedonism is the “claim that only pleasure of pain motivates us.” There are two forms of Hedonism (psychological and ethical hedonism) both claiming “only pleasure has worth and value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth.” The paradox of hedonism claims that our impulses towards pleasure can be self-defeating, resulting in the failure to obtain the amount of pleasure we seek to begin with. Mill’s argues that we can still experience pain or suffering and reach the ultimate happiness, it is simply how we weigh said happiness. Stating “…some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.” Mills argues that “higher” pleasures are superior to “lower” pleasures of the body. Bother are ultimately different in quality, as well as quantity. For example, one might weigh volunteering at a dining hall a higher pleasure than getting drunk with friends. In regards to utilitarianism being pig philosophy, I would say no it is not. Huang beings are motivated by pleasure but we aim for more than just “mere sensations.” Many people are motivated by a wide range of things, it is debatable what is most pleasurable to one individual to another. Utility begs the question of the quality of pleasure that provides the most happiness.
word count: 636
Let's Talk Turkey 