John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism
(The Com plete Notes)
Chapter 1: Gen er al Rem ar ks
Sum m ar y
Mill begins his essay by observing that very little progress has been made toward
developing a set of standards by which to judge moral right and wrong. For more than
two thousand years, people have been attempting to determine the basis of morality, but
have not come any closer to consensus. Mill acknowledges that in the sciences, it is
common to have disagreement about such bases or foundations. However, he argues
that in science particular truths can still have meaning even if we do not understand the
principles underlying them; in contrast, in areas such as law or ethics, a statement
unfounded upon a generally accepted theoretical basis has very little validity at all. In
these areas (unlike in science), all action exists to forward a particular end; thus it would
seem that rules of action would depend on what ends are being pursued. Mill therefore
argues that in order to know what morality dictates, it is necessary to know by what
standard human actions should be judged.
Mill then addresses the issue of moral instinct, and whether the existence of such an
instinct would eliminate the need for determining the foundation of morality. He argues
it does not. First, the existence of such a moral sense is disputable. Secondly, even if this
sense does exist, it does not tell us whether something is right or wrong in a particular
case. Rather, this instinct supplies only general principles. Thus, although general laws
are a necessary part of moral thinking, it is the application of these laws to specific cases
that constitutes morality itself. However, people do not often try to make a list of these
general laws, or a priori principles, that are the foundation of morality; nor do they
attempt to reduce these to a single first principle. Rather, they either assume that
commonly accepted moral rules should be seen as having a priori legitimacy, or they
arbitrarily posit some implausible first principle that does not then gain popular
acceptance. Mill argues that the moral claims made by many previous thinkers are
therefore unfounded.
Yet our moral beliefs have undergone little alteration over the course of history; their
durability implies that there exists some standard that serves as a solid, if unrecognized,
foundation. Mill argues that this unrecognized standard is the principle of utility, or the
"greatest happiness principle." He notes that utilitarianism has had tremendous
influence in shaping moral doctrines, even among those people who reject the principle,
such as Immanuel Kant.
,Mill writes that his essay will reflect his attempt to add to the understanding and
appreciation of utilitarianism, and to present some kind of proof of it as a moral theory.
Utilitarianism cannot be "proven" in the ordinary sense of the word, Mill asserts, since it
is not possible to prove questions regarding ultimate ends. Rather, the only statements
that can be proven to be valid are those statements that lead to other statements that we
accept to be valid. However, this does not mean that we must judge first principles
arbitrarily; we can still evaluate them rationally. This essay, then, will present and
consider various arguments in support of utilitarianism. Also, since much of the
opposition to utilitarianism issues from misunderstandings of the theory, Mill says he
will also focus on what utilitarianism actually posits.
An alysis
In these introductory remarks, Mill sets the stage for his essay. It is helpful to observe
his strategy of argument here. He begins by observing something of a crisis in moral
thinking: basically, people have been unable to come to any consensus on what
principles the notions of "right" and "wrong" are based on. Mill argues that having such
a foundation is necessary in order for morality to have any legitimacy or significance. If
actions are to be judged by whether they further "good" ends, it is necessary to
know which ends are good. Moreover, the stakes of this question are high: it is not
simply an academic debate; rather, legal and ethical thinking depend upon a clearly
defined moral standard. Having presented this problem, Mill introduces utilitarianism
as a potential solution. He argues that it is already implicitly used as a standard, and
that it fulfils the requirements of being a first principle.
It is important to note that Mill defines morality's purpose as bringing about a particular
state of the world. This is one framework through which to understand morality, and
Mill defines it as the essential one. It is important to think about whether this
consequences-based understanding of morality is convincing. For example, consider
something regarded as immoral, such as lying. Consider then a situation in which the
telling of a lie could prevent five other people from having to lie. Is the first lie morally
justified? The answer depends in part on whether one believes that morality's essential
function is to bring about the "best," general state of the world, or whether its function is
to govern individual acts independent of their more general consequences: if one
believes that the point of morality is to create a better world as a whole, and if you
accept that lying is bad, then the fewer total lies in the world the better, and one should
tell that first lie to prevent the other five from being told. Other accounts of morality,
however, might argue that bringing about the best state of the world at large is not
morality's concern. For example, one could argue that morality bears most strongly
upon the conduct of a single person as an individual: as an individual, one should never
lie, no matter what; to lie is to defile oneself morally. There are many variations of this
argument, as well as completely different ways to potentially ground morality: Mill's
view of morality is only way of considering the question.
, Mill uses the concept of "first principles" and foundations of morality throughout his
essay. With this notion, Mill asserts that it is not enough simply to characterize actions
as good or evil; rather, there must be something about these actions that gives them a
moral nature, and a reason why terms like "good" and "evil" have such resonance in the
first place. The starting point for Mill's philosophy is this quandary of our culture: that
people have not been able to agree about what this essential principle of morality is, or
why it is so special. He explains that his essay will be an attempt to identify this
foundation once and for all--namely, to identify it as the concept of utility-- and then to
demonstrate why this moral foundation is so extraordinary, so central to our existence
as human beings.
Chapter 2: W hat Utilitar ian ism Is (Par t 1)
Sum m ar y
Mill attempts to reply to misconceptions about utilitarianism, and thereby delineate the
theory. Mill observes that many people misunderstand utilitarianism by interpreting
utility as in opposition to pleasure. In reality, utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the
absence of pain. Thus another name for utility is the Greatest Happiness Principle. This
principle holds that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended
pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."
Pleasure and the absence of pain are, by this account, the only things desirable as ends
in themselves, the only things inherently "good." Thus, any other circumstance, event,
or experience is desirable only insofar as it is a source for such pleasure; actions are
good when they lead to a higher level of general happiness, and bad when they decrease
that level.
The next criticism Mill takes on is the claim that it is base and demeaning to reduce the
meaning of life to pleasure. To this Mill replies that human pleasures are much superior
animalistic ones: once people are made aware of their higher faculties, they will never be
happy to leave them uncultivated; thus happiness is a sign that we are exercising our
higher faculties. It is true that some pleasures may be "base"; however, this does not
mean that all of them are: rather, some are intrinsically more valuable than others.
When making a moral judgment on an action, utilitarianism thus takes into account not
just the quantity, but also the quality of the pleasures resulting from it.
Mill delineates how to differentiate between higher- and lower-quality pleasures: A
pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different pleasure even if it
is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the
other pleasure. Moreover, Mill contends, it is an "unquestionable fact" that, given equal
access to all kinds of pleasures, people will prefer those that appeal to their "higher"
(The Com plete Notes)
Chapter 1: Gen er al Rem ar ks
Sum m ar y
Mill begins his essay by observing that very little progress has been made toward
developing a set of standards by which to judge moral right and wrong. For more than
two thousand years, people have been attempting to determine the basis of morality, but
have not come any closer to consensus. Mill acknowledges that in the sciences, it is
common to have disagreement about such bases or foundations. However, he argues
that in science particular truths can still have meaning even if we do not understand the
principles underlying them; in contrast, in areas such as law or ethics, a statement
unfounded upon a generally accepted theoretical basis has very little validity at all. In
these areas (unlike in science), all action exists to forward a particular end; thus it would
seem that rules of action would depend on what ends are being pursued. Mill therefore
argues that in order to know what morality dictates, it is necessary to know by what
standard human actions should be judged.
Mill then addresses the issue of moral instinct, and whether the existence of such an
instinct would eliminate the need for determining the foundation of morality. He argues
it does not. First, the existence of such a moral sense is disputable. Secondly, even if this
sense does exist, it does not tell us whether something is right or wrong in a particular
case. Rather, this instinct supplies only general principles. Thus, although general laws
are a necessary part of moral thinking, it is the application of these laws to specific cases
that constitutes morality itself. However, people do not often try to make a list of these
general laws, or a priori principles, that are the foundation of morality; nor do they
attempt to reduce these to a single first principle. Rather, they either assume that
commonly accepted moral rules should be seen as having a priori legitimacy, or they
arbitrarily posit some implausible first principle that does not then gain popular
acceptance. Mill argues that the moral claims made by many previous thinkers are
therefore unfounded.
Yet our moral beliefs have undergone little alteration over the course of history; their
durability implies that there exists some standard that serves as a solid, if unrecognized,
foundation. Mill argues that this unrecognized standard is the principle of utility, or the
"greatest happiness principle." He notes that utilitarianism has had tremendous
influence in shaping moral doctrines, even among those people who reject the principle,
such as Immanuel Kant.
,Mill writes that his essay will reflect his attempt to add to the understanding and
appreciation of utilitarianism, and to present some kind of proof of it as a moral theory.
Utilitarianism cannot be "proven" in the ordinary sense of the word, Mill asserts, since it
is not possible to prove questions regarding ultimate ends. Rather, the only statements
that can be proven to be valid are those statements that lead to other statements that we
accept to be valid. However, this does not mean that we must judge first principles
arbitrarily; we can still evaluate them rationally. This essay, then, will present and
consider various arguments in support of utilitarianism. Also, since much of the
opposition to utilitarianism issues from misunderstandings of the theory, Mill says he
will also focus on what utilitarianism actually posits.
An alysis
In these introductory remarks, Mill sets the stage for his essay. It is helpful to observe
his strategy of argument here. He begins by observing something of a crisis in moral
thinking: basically, people have been unable to come to any consensus on what
principles the notions of "right" and "wrong" are based on. Mill argues that having such
a foundation is necessary in order for morality to have any legitimacy or significance. If
actions are to be judged by whether they further "good" ends, it is necessary to
know which ends are good. Moreover, the stakes of this question are high: it is not
simply an academic debate; rather, legal and ethical thinking depend upon a clearly
defined moral standard. Having presented this problem, Mill introduces utilitarianism
as a potential solution. He argues that it is already implicitly used as a standard, and
that it fulfils the requirements of being a first principle.
It is important to note that Mill defines morality's purpose as bringing about a particular
state of the world. This is one framework through which to understand morality, and
Mill defines it as the essential one. It is important to think about whether this
consequences-based understanding of morality is convincing. For example, consider
something regarded as immoral, such as lying. Consider then a situation in which the
telling of a lie could prevent five other people from having to lie. Is the first lie morally
justified? The answer depends in part on whether one believes that morality's essential
function is to bring about the "best," general state of the world, or whether its function is
to govern individual acts independent of their more general consequences: if one
believes that the point of morality is to create a better world as a whole, and if you
accept that lying is bad, then the fewer total lies in the world the better, and one should
tell that first lie to prevent the other five from being told. Other accounts of morality,
however, might argue that bringing about the best state of the world at large is not
morality's concern. For example, one could argue that morality bears most strongly
upon the conduct of a single person as an individual: as an individual, one should never
lie, no matter what; to lie is to defile oneself morally. There are many variations of this
argument, as well as completely different ways to potentially ground morality: Mill's
view of morality is only way of considering the question.
, Mill uses the concept of "first principles" and foundations of morality throughout his
essay. With this notion, Mill asserts that it is not enough simply to characterize actions
as good or evil; rather, there must be something about these actions that gives them a
moral nature, and a reason why terms like "good" and "evil" have such resonance in the
first place. The starting point for Mill's philosophy is this quandary of our culture: that
people have not been able to agree about what this essential principle of morality is, or
why it is so special. He explains that his essay will be an attempt to identify this
foundation once and for all--namely, to identify it as the concept of utility-- and then to
demonstrate why this moral foundation is so extraordinary, so central to our existence
as human beings.
Chapter 2: W hat Utilitar ian ism Is (Par t 1)
Sum m ar y
Mill attempts to reply to misconceptions about utilitarianism, and thereby delineate the
theory. Mill observes that many people misunderstand utilitarianism by interpreting
utility as in opposition to pleasure. In reality, utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the
absence of pain. Thus another name for utility is the Greatest Happiness Principle. This
principle holds that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended
pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."
Pleasure and the absence of pain are, by this account, the only things desirable as ends
in themselves, the only things inherently "good." Thus, any other circumstance, event,
or experience is desirable only insofar as it is a source for such pleasure; actions are
good when they lead to a higher level of general happiness, and bad when they decrease
that level.
The next criticism Mill takes on is the claim that it is base and demeaning to reduce the
meaning of life to pleasure. To this Mill replies that human pleasures are much superior
animalistic ones: once people are made aware of their higher faculties, they will never be
happy to leave them uncultivated; thus happiness is a sign that we are exercising our
higher faculties. It is true that some pleasures may be "base"; however, this does not
mean that all of them are: rather, some are intrinsically more valuable than others.
When making a moral judgment on an action, utilitarianism thus takes into account not
just the quantity, but also the quality of the pleasures resulting from it.
Mill delineates how to differentiate between higher- and lower-quality pleasures: A
pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different pleasure even if it
is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the
other pleasure. Moreover, Mill contends, it is an "unquestionable fact" that, given equal
access to all kinds of pleasures, people will prefer those that appeal to their "higher"
