Embedded Files
Background
Background
John Stuart Mill remained loyal to his teacher, Bentham, and was a supporter of Bentham’s Utilitarianism his whole life. However, his views on the subject departed a little from those of his teacher. The strict objective and quantitative version of utilitarianism described by Bentham gave way to a more subjective, qualitative approach.
John Stuart Mill’s qualitative version of utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill’s qualitative version of utilitarianism
Whereas Bentham wanted a system which quantified pleasure and pain, Mill’s version of the theory was qualitative - that is, it is interested in making non-numerical judgements about happiness instead.
Mill thought that some pleasures were higher than others and should be valued more. For example, a simple pleasure like having a nice cheese sandwich was worth less than a ‘higher’ pleasure like going to the opera.
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, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.
—John Stuart Mill, UtilitarianismMill thought that one pleasure was ‘higher’ than another if someone who had experienced both pleasures judged it to be so. He calls this person ‘a competent judge’. Higher pleasures are pleasures caused by the exercise of our higher faculties, whereas lower pleasures are pleasures caused by the exercise of our lower capacities.
A snobby kind of utilitarianism?
A snobby kind of utilitarianism?
An issue with this view, however, is that Mill’s Utilitarianism is far less egalitarian than Bentham. Mill’s version seems to be a lot more snobby. One of the benefits of Bentham’s system was that the only thing that mattered was whether or not you feel pleasure or pain. Mill, on the other hand, seems to reinstate the status hierarchy - placing socrates above a fool and above a pig.
Mill’s proof of the greatest happiness principle
Mill’s proof of the greatest happiness principle
Mill also attempted to prove the greatest happiness principle. He though that we could see that happiness was desirable, simply because we actually desire it.
The only evidence that X is V-able, is the fact that people V X. / If people V X, then X is V-able
If people actually see something, then it is visible
If people actually hear something, then it is audible
Each person desires happiness (as an end)
∴ happiness is desirable (as an end)
∴ general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons.
Does Mill commit the fallacy of equivocation?
Does Mill commit the fallacy of equivocation?
The fallacy of equivocation is when your argument relies on two different meanings of the same word. G E Moore argued that Mill commits this fallacy in his ‘proof’:
In Mill’s argument the word ‘desirable’ can be interpreted as having two meanings:
It is possible to desire.
It is something valuable.
For example, I might desire a cigarette in the first sense, but it is certainly not desirable in the second sense. Whereas loving your job might be valuable, but simply not possible for whatever reason.
Of course, we desire happiness in the sense 1, but it doesn’t follow that it is desirable in sense 2.
Tasks
Tasks
Explain the difference between Mill’s version of Utilitarianism and Bentham’s.
Which do you think is the better version? Explain your answer.
Explain Mill’s ‘proof of the greatest happiness principle’.
Give one objection to Mill's proof.
Evaluate Mill’s proof.
Page updated
Report abuse