1. Explain Mill’s “principle of utility”? Why do you think Mill feels compelled to defend it in such great detail?

Mill’s “principle of utility” consists in justifying actions by producing happiness and reducing its reverse.

The reason why Mill defends its “principle of utility” in such great detail is that many of those who argue against utilitarian theory knows little about it while producing their arguments which are mainly based on the meaning of words “utility” and “pleasure”.

  1. What is Mill’s response to the first criticism, namely, that the greatest happiness principle is a “swinish doctrine”?

He cited the answer of Epicureans. The defense argument was that those critiques merely insulted human beings by denying that they are capable of any pleasures except of which swine are capable.  

  1. How does Mill distinguish between different kinds of pleasure? What criterion does he set up to judge differences in the quality of pleasures? What motivates him to make such distinctions? Is his distinction satisfying? Is it true?

Mill states that some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others.

Of two pleasures, if everybody who has experience of both give a preference to one of them, regardless of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.  The most valuable pleasure is the one which is chosen of two pleasures by somebody who have experience of both and who choose it regardless of a greater amount of discontent and any quantity of the other offered.

Mill’s evaluation of pleasures does not take into account the fact that in many cases we may not have experience of both pleasures.  In other words, human creatures are not always competent judges when choosing between higher and lower pleasures. Moreover, even if we are “competently acquainted with both” enjoyments we may predict fallaciously a long-term effect of each pleasure on the total utility of the greatest number.

  1. Suppose that I save someone from drowning because I know that it will bring me fame. Am I doing something moral according to Mill? Why or Why not?

An action which increases the sum total of happiness is morally justified by utilitarian theory. If I save somebody I will become famous which adds to my happiness and I will make happy the rescued person. Thus, my action is moral according to Mill.

  1. State and explain two of the contemporary critiques of utilitarianism, and whether or not utilitarianism can be defended from these critiques.

Contemporary philosopher John Rawls objected to utilitarianism by focusing on the issue of rights, justice and fairness. He states that rights of the individual can be easily revoked in the utilitarian society because the main goal in it is the happiness of the group. So, the person has rights only as far as his or her rights don’t interfere with the greatest happiness of the greatest number.  

Another objection to Utilitarianism sets a stress on an unequal and unfair distribution of satisfaction between members of the Utilitarian society. For example, there may exist people whose happiness requires more pleasure than average and persons who can not experience pleasure at all. 

  1. Should we all be utilitarians? Why or why not? Will the utilitarian society be able to remove or, at least, diminish the positive evils of life so that the future generations could enjoy the cultivated sources of satisfaction without limits?

I would say no, because utilitarianism states that any action that maximizes happiness is good, then killing one person against his will in order to save for example 10 people would be immoral act. Utilitarianism doesn’t take into account rights of the individual, a person’s intention. That is the flaw.

Mill admits that along with other moral principles utilitarianism is not a perfect ethical creed and this is the fault not of a system but of a “complicated nature of human affairs”. Indeed, moral decision-making is such a complex process that any theory still cannot avoid conflicting situations in the development of the ethical guidance. Probably, the best we can do is to choose the lesser evil but which one is it? 

Bibliography:

  • Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism in Ethics, Edited by Steven M. Cahn, Peter Markie, Fifth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2012.
  • Rowls, John, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press; 2 edition, 1999.