Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill, is an essay written to provide support for the value of utilitarianism as a moral theory, and to respond to misconceptions about it. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that pleasures that are rooted in one's higher faculties should be weighted more heavily than baser pleasures. Furthermore, Mill argues that people's achievement of goals and ends, such as virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness.

Mill argues that utilitarianism coincides with "natural" sentiments that originate from humans' social nature. Therefore, if society were to embrace utilitarianism as an ethic, people would naturally internalize these standards as morally binding. Mill argues that happiness is the sole basis of morality, and that people never desire anything but happiness. He supports this claim by showing that all the other objects of people's desire are either means to happiness, or included in the definition of happiness. Mill explains at length that the sentiment of justice is actually based on utility, and that rights exist only because they are necessary for human happiness.

The theory of utilitarianism has been criticized for many reasons. Critics hold that it does not provide adequate protection for individual rights, that not everything can be measured by the same standard, and that happiness is more complex than reflected by the theory. Mill's essay represents his attempt to respond to these criticisms, and thereby to provide a more complex and nuanced moral theory.

Mill's argument comprises five chapters. His first chapter serves as an introduction to the essay. In his second chapter, Mill discusses the definition of utilitarianism, and presents some misconceptions about the theory. The third chapter is a discussion about the ultimate sanctions (or rewards) that utilitarianism can offer. The fourth chapter discusses methods of proving the validity of utilitarianism. In his fifth chapter, Mill writes about the connection between justice and utility, and argues that happiness is the foundation of justice.

Chapter 1: General Remarks

Summary

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.

Commentary

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: What Utilitarianism Is (Part 1)

Summary

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" faculties. A person will not choose to become an animal, an educated person will not choose to become ignorant, and so on. Even though a person who uses higher faculties often suffers more in life (hence the common dictum "ignorance is bliss"), he would never choose a lower existence, preferring instead to maintain his dignity.

Another misconception about utilitarianism stems from a confusion of happiness with contentment. People who employ higher faculties are often less content, because they have a deeper sense of the limitations of the world. However, their pleasure is of a higher character than that of an animal or a base human. Mill writes, "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, are of a different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question." Thus the people best qualified to judge a pleasure's quality are people who have experienced both the higher and the lower.

Furthermore, Mill observes that even if the possession of a "noble character" brought less happiness to the individual, society would still benefit. Thus, because the greatest happiness principle considers the total amount of happiness, a noble character, even if it is less desirable for the individual, is still desirable by a utilitarian standard.

Commentary

This chapter provides the definition of utilitarianism. There are a few important aspects of this definition. First, it presents utility, or the existence of pleasure and the absence of pain, as both the basis of everything that people desire, and as the foundation of morality. However, utilitarianism does not say that it is moral for people simply to pursue what makes them personally happy. Rather, morality is dictated by the greatest happiness principle; moral action is that which increases the total amount of utility in the world. Pursuing one's own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework.

The most significant aspect of this section, however, is Mill's discussion of the higher and lower pleasures. Over the years, utilitarianism's critics have often objected that it tries to compare things that are fundamentally incommensurable, by artificially computing the amount of utility they bring. For example, by reducing the value of an experience or action to the utility, or pleasure, inherent in them, utilitarianism "cheapens" certain experiences: is it fair to compare eating ice cream to reading War and Peace, based on the pleasure each brings? In this chapter, Mill tries to address

this concern. He argues that utility is not simply a measurement of the psychological feeling of pleasure; rather, there are different qualities of pleasure, and only people with a broad range of experiences can dictate which pleasures are of a higher quality. Thus all actions and experiences are not judged by one reductive standard, but rather according to a variety of different qualities of pleasure in correspondence with the type of experience. Higher pleasures would be weighted heavily by utilitarianism, and Mill argues that they are therefore not cheapened by the utility measurement.

It is important, then, to consider whether Mill has adequately responded to criticisms about incommensurable pleasures; is Mill's explanation complete? We still might ask what it is that makes some pleasures "superior" to others. When we say that a pleasure is "higher," what do we really mean? That it is more educational? Appreciated only by those with good taste? Appreciated only by the intelligent? Utility is supposed to be a foundational measurement, but perhaps to acknowledge the existence of higher and lower pleasures is to admit a standard of measurement other than mere pleasure. How might Mill respond to this objection?

Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is (Part 2)

Summary

Having responded to the objection that utilitarianism glorifies base pleasures, Mill spends the rest of this chapter presenting and responding to other criticisms of utilitarianism.

One such objection is that happiness couldn't be the rational aim of human life, because it is unattainable. Furthermore, people can exist without happiness, and all virtuous people have become virtuous by renouncing happiness.

First, Mill replies that it is an exaggeration to state that people cannot be happy. He contends that happiness, when defined as moments of rapture occurring in a life troubled by few pains, is indeed possible, and would be possible for almost everybody if educational and social arrangements were different. The major sources of unhappiness are selfishness and a lack of mental cultivation. Thus, it is fully within most people's capabilities to be happy, if their education nurtures the appropriate values. Furthermore, most of the evils of the world, including poverty and disease, can be alleviated by a wise and energetic society devoted to their elimination.

Next, Mill addresses the argument that the most virtuous people in history are those who have renounced happiness. He admits this is true, and he admits that there are

martyrs who give up their happiness. However, Mill argues that martyrs must sacrifice happiness for some greater end--and what else could this be but the happiness of other people? The sacrifice is made so that others will not have to make similar sacrifices; implicit in the sacrifice is the value of others' happiness. Mill admits that the willingness to sacrifice one's happiness for that of others is the highest virtue. Furthermore, he says that to maintain an attitude of such willingness is actually the best chance of gaining happiness, because it will lead a person to be tranquil about his life and prospects. He specifies, however, that while utilitarians value sacrificing one's good for the good of others, they do not think that the sacrifice is in itself a good. It is a good insofar as it promotes happiness, but is not a good if it does not promote happiness.

Mill observes that the utilitarian's standard for judging an act is the happiness of all people, not of the agent alone. Thus, a person must not value his own happiness over the happiness of others; and law and education help to instill this generosity in individuals. However, this does not mean that people's motives must only be to serve the greatest good; indeed, utilitarianism is not concerned with the motives behind an action; the morality of an action depends on the goodness of its result only. Moreover, in most aspects of everyday life, a person will not be affecting large numbers of other people, and thus need not consider his or her actions in relation to the good of all, but only to the good of those involved. It is only the people who work in the public sphere and affect many other people who must think about public utility on a regular basis.

Another criticism of utilitarianism is that it leaves people "cold and unsympathizing," as it is concerned solely with the consequences of people's actions, and not on the individuals as moral or immoral in themselves. First, Mill replies that if the criticism is that utilitarianism does not let the rightness or wrongness of an action be affected by the kind of person who performs the action, then this is a criticism of all morality: All ethical standards judge actions in themselves, without considering the morality of those who performed them. However, he says that if the criticism is meant to imply that many utilitarians look on utilitarianism as an exclusive standard of morality, and fail to appreciate other desirable "beauties of character," then this is a valid critique of many utilitarians. He says that it is a mistake to only cultivate moral feelings, to the exclusion of the sympathies or artistic understandings, a mistake moralists of all persuasions often make. However, he does say that if there is to be a mistake of priorities, it is preferable to err on the side of moral thinking.

Mill then presents a few more misunderstandings about utilitarian theory, which he declares are obviously wrong but which many people nonetheless believe. First, utilitarianism is often called a godless doctrine, because its moral foundation is the human happiness, and not the will of God. Mill replies that the criticism depends on what we see to be the moral character of God; for if God desires the happiness of all His creatures, then utilitarianism is more religious than any other doctrine. A utilitarian believes that God's revealed truths about morality will fit with utilitarian principles. Furthermore, many moralists, not simply utilitarians, have believed that we need an ethical doctrine, carefully followed, in order to understand the will of God in the first place.

Secondly, utilitarianism is often conflated with Expediency, and therefore considered immoral. However, "expedient" usually refers to acting against what is right for the sake of personal interest or short-term goals. Thus, instead of being useful, this meaning of expediency is actually harmful. Mill would argue that hurting society is not truly expedient, and that to act against society's interests is to be an enemy of morality.

Many critics hold that prior to taking action, there is often not enough time to weigh its effects on general utility. Mill dismisses this, saying that such a claim is akin to saying that we can't guide our conduct by Christianity because we can't read the Bible every time we had to act. He asserts that we have had the entire history of human existence within which to learn the tendencies of actions to lead to particular results. There is a great deal of consensus about what is useful, and we have the capacity to impart this knowledge to children too. This is not to say that received ethics are always correct, and there is still much to learn about the effects of actions on general happiness. However, people need not reapply the first principles to an action each time they perform it. All rational people go through life with their minds made up on certain basic questions of right and wrong.

Finally, utilitarianism is criticized as too allowing, as underestimating the immoral tendencies of human nature. For example, it is argued that a utilitarian will make his own case an exception to the rules, and will be tempted to justify breaking the rules by simply saying that a given action increases utility. However, Mill says this problem is not limited to utilitarian theories. All creeds must have exceptions, because the need for exceptions is part of the reality of human life. Having a standard of utility to invoke is better than having no standard at all.

Commentary

One of Mill's most common replies to objections about utilitarianism is that the given critique is not unique to utilitarianism, that any ethical theory would have such limitations. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this tactic? Does it really satisfy Mill's stated objective, to dispel misconceptions about his theory? Might such a reply undermine all ethical theories?

Mill makes some of his most controversial arguments in this section, and it is important to look closely at his arguments and assumptions. There is not an obvious right or wrong answer in this debate, but it may be helpful to think about some of the areas where Mill's argument is most commonly attacked. Mill observes that utilitarianism is concerned with increasing the amount of general happiness, not with increasing any one person's happiness. One common criticism of this concept is that by basing morality on the general good, utilitarianism fails to appreciate the importance of the individual. In dealing with this debate, it is useful to recognize a difference of perspective. Mill takes an impersonal perspective, where morality is impartial. One could, however, argue that morality should be subject-oriented, or interpeersonal. Another contentious point is Mill's argument that individuals' motives do not matter in morality. Is an action fundamentally different if it is performed for good or bad reasons? Mill would argue it is not. Finally, Mill argues that sacrificing happiness is only desirable if it will lead to more happiness generally. He rejects the value of sacrifice in itself. However, many people do see value in an ascetic life, independent of the consequences it produces. This leads back to the most basic question about utilitarianism: Is the greatest happiness principle the ultimate foundation of morality?

Chapter 3: Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility

Summary

A philosophy cannot be binding if it does not contain inherent consequences for those who break its rules. In this chapter, Mill says he will explore what built-in sanctions utilitarianism can provide; in other words, what punishments the philosophy might impose upon those who do not abide by it. Mill notes a potential challenge to the utilitarian system: if a person is presented with a first principle that general custom does not deem fundamental, that person will see no reason to respect or value that principle. Rather, the corollary moral ideas based on the first principle will seem to have a stronger foundation (because they enjoy general acceptance) than the foundation itself. Mill says that this challenge will simply persist for utilitarianism until education influences people to see the general good as a deeply rooted moral good. Until this occurs, however, the problem is not unique to

utilitarianism, but is rather inherent to any system that attempts to find foundations for morality.

Mill writes that utilitarianism has or can impose all the sanctions that other moral systems can. Mill notes that there exist both external and internal sanctions: external sanctions exist externally to the human agent as an individual; they may take the form of peer pressure--the fear of their disapproval--or of divine pressure--the fear of his wrath. Mill argues that these motives could just as easily be associated with utilitarianism as with any other moral system. The second type of sanction, internal sanctions, stems from one's conscience; these consist of feelings in one's own mind that create discomfort when one violates duty. These feelings can influence actions, if one's moral nature has been sufficiently cultivated. Indeed, internal sanctions are more powerful than any external sanction. And, as they are a fact of human nature, there is no reason to think that they can't be cultivated to support utilitarian principles in specific.

Mill acknowledges that many people believe that individuals are more likely to follow moral principles if they see them as objective fact, rather than if they see them as rooted in subjective feelings. However, Mill observes that whatever a person believes the root of a moral principle to be, his ultimate motivation to action is always subjective feeling. Furthermore, the problem of people ignoring their consciences is a problem facing all of humanity, not just the philosophy of utilitarianism.

Thus, if internal sanctions provide the strongest influence over people's actions, utilitarianism must appeal to people's inner sentiments in order to exercise a binding force on them. Mill addresses the issue of whether the sentiment of duty is "innate or implanted" in human consciousness by saying that for the purposes of this essay, the distinction is not important, because either way it would support utilitarianism. Mill maintains that moral feelings are acquired; however, this does not mean that they are not natural. Moral feelings may not be a part of human nature, but they are a natural outgrowth of it. They can spring up to some degree spontaneously, but they can also be cultivated. However, bad moral principles can also be cultivated in people, under the pressure of external sanctions. These are "artificial" moral feelings, because they are imposed rather than naturally developed. However, we can distinguish these from natural moral feelings because the artificial ones eventually dissolve under scrutiny of analysis. Now, because the feeling of duty crucial to utilitarianism does not crumble under reflection, utility emerges as a particularly strong foundation. This suggests that there is "a natural basis of sentiment for utilitarian morality."

Thus, Mill argues that once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that promote utilitarianism. Mill argues that utilitarianism thus has its roots in the social nature of human beings--in their desire to be in unity with other humans, and their fear of other people's disapproval. Society can harbor no relations other than the master-slave relationship unless it has as its base the principle that all people's interests have equal merit. Because society is currently advancing towards equality, people grow up seeing it as impossible to wholly disregard other people's interests. Mill argues that society could and should nourish this natural sentiment through education and law. He asserts that if we imagine that this feeling of social unity were taught in the same way religion is taught, and thus implanted as an internal sanction, then utilitarianism would exert a binding force sufficient to influence behavior. Furthermore, this feeling does not require the education system just described in order to be able to influence people; for even in this comparatively early state of advancement, people cannot escape feeling a degree of fellow-feeling with other humans. This sentiment is usually eclipsed by selfish feelings, but for those who have it, it does take on the character and legitimacy of a natural feeling. Thus, utilitarianism's sanctions are based on natural human sentiments, which the proper system of education could nurture.

Commentary

Mill's discussion about sanctions is quite abstract, and it might be clearer if illustrated with an example. Imagine that a philosopher poses a moral theory that declares that actions are morally good insofar as they promote human suffering. Now, one issue for any moral theory is that people must be capable of internalizing its dictates. In this case, it must be possible for a person's conscience to sting him if he failed to make others suffer. Is it possible for people to feel that causing suffering is morally good? Mill would say that it ispossible: people could be educated and socialized in such a way that they have internal sanctions that promote suffering. However, Mill would argue that such feelings would be artificial: they are not based on human nature, or on facts of human experience. Rather, they come closer to being the result of brainwashing. As a result, if people analyzed or reflected on their sentiments, they would come to reject this theory of suffering. For what is a true fact of human nature is the inclination to work together socially, to share in each other's endeavors--and to make other suffer is a behavior that contradicts that fact.

Mill would argue that unlike such a hypothetical system, utilitarianism accommodates these facts about human nature. This does not mean that all people have feelings that support the rules of utilitarianism; they may have been socialized to value other

things. Mill's point, however, is that if people were educated to embrace utilitarianism, they would develop a sentiment promoting social utility as morally good. Such a sentiment would make people feel guilty if they worked against utilitarian ends. Furthermore, such a sentiment would not be rejected upon reflection, as would a social system based on suffering. Rather, since utilitarian sentiments are natural, they harmonize with human nature and make sense upon reflection.

Why is it so important for Mill to show that utilitarianism would be supported by people's sentiments? Mill believes that any moral theory must be capable of binding people to its dictates. He tries to show that the only way that people are bound, however, is through how they feel. Thus, in order for utilitarianism to be tenable as a theory, people must be able to feel that promoting general happiness is a morally good thing. Mill is attempting to show that utilitarianism does fulfill this requirement. One thing worth considering here, is whether a person could have a logical or intellectual reason to do something even if his sentiments did not support doing so. Mill assumes that this is not possible. But might human beings' actions be motivated by influences other than their sentiments? How might Mill reply to this concern? A second question: Can moral principles hold sway in society without the kind of enforcement mechanism Mill believes is required?

Chapter 4: Of what sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible

Summary

Mill begins this chapter by saying that it is not possible to prove any first principles by reasoning. How, then, can we know that utility is a foundational principle? The purpose of this chapter is to explore what should be required of utilitarianism in order for it to be believed as valid. Mill argues that the only proof that something is desirable is that people actually desire it. It is a fact that happiness is a good, because all people desire their own happiness. Thus, it is clear that happiness is at least one end, and one criterion, of morality.

However, in order to show that happiness is the sole criterion for morality, it is necessary to show that people never desire anything but happiness. Mill says that people do desire things like virtue, which in common language is distinguished from happiness. However, Mill states that people love virtue only because it constitutes a part of happiness. Mill argues that happiness is not an abstract idea, but a whole with component parts. Because virtue is a part of happiness, and promotes the general happiness, utilitarianism encourages the development of virtue.

Anything that is desired beyond being a means to happiness is desired because it is part of happiness. Thus, Mill explains that proving utilitarianism is a psychological question. The real issue is whether it is true that people only desire things that are part of happiness or a means to happiness. This can only be answered by self-reflection and observation of others. Mill contends that utilitarianism is true, and that impartial reflection will show that desiring something is the same thing as thinking it pleasant. He argues that this is so obvious that he doubts it could be disputed. The only possible refutation that could legitimately be made is that the moral will is something different than physical or emotional desire; virtuous people carry out actions without thought of such pleasures. Mill admits that will is different than desire, and often becomes an end in itself. However, all will originates in desire; if we will a thing that we now no longer desire, it is only by force of habit. This does not change the fact that things are good to people only insofar as they lead to pleasure. Mill then says that it leaves it to the "thoughtful reader" whether what he has said is true.

Commentary

Mill further expands his discussion of happiness in this chapter. Recall that in Chapter 2, Mill argued that pleasures that were based on one's higher faculties were of a higher quality, and should be weighted accordingly. In this way, he tried to expand the meaning of happiness to allow for different kinds of pleasure. In Chapter 4 Mill expands the meaning of happiness again. A possible objection to utilitarianism is that certain experiences could be integral parts of a compound happiness, not merely a means to a pure, elemental happiness. Correspondingly, Mill argues now that utilitarianism can leave room for the fact that happiness consists of the other experiences that people value. This idea of happiness as having "component parts" is an important expansion of the meaning of happiness by Mill.

The other major argument in this chapter is that the motivation for all action is based on the fulfillment of desire. However, he probably rightly contends that whether he is correct is an empirical question, a question answered by observing oneself and others. This brings up an important question about the lines between psychology and philosophy. If utilitarianism is based on the psychological make-up of human beings, then to what degree is it merely descriptive? We tend to want philosophy to provide reasons why we should behave in a particular manner. However, to note that we do behave in a certain manner is not necessarily to prove that we ought to behave that way. One should consider at which points in the text Mill is observing how humans view the world, and at which points he is advocating a certain worldview. What does

his theory lose and gain from relying on psychological arguments? To what degree is it even possible to avoid a dependence upon description?

Chapter 5: Of the Connection between Justice and Utility (Part 1)

Summary

Mill says that throughout history, one of the biggest barriers to the acceptance of utility has been that it does not allow for a theory of justice. In this chapter, then, Mill will determine whether the justice or injustice of an action is something intrinsic and distinct from questions of utility. In examining this it is necessary to determine whether a sense of justice exists in itself, or is derivative and formed by a combination of other feelings; is this sense explicable by our emotional make-up, or is it a "special provision of nature"? To answer this, we must ascertain what the distinguishing quality of justice is, if there is such a quality.

Mill begins by trying to pin down the meaning of justice, by coming up with a list of those things that are commonly classified as just or unjust. First, it is considered unjust to deprive someone of his legal rights. However, this concept has exceptions. For example, a person may have legal rights he should not have--his rights may be the provision of a bad law. While people vary on whether bad laws can be justly disobeyed, all people agree that laws can be unjust. Therefore, law cannot be the ultimate standard of justice. A second form of injustice comes from depriving someone of something he has a moral right to possess. Third, it is considered just that a person receive what he "deserves," and unjust that he obtain something he doesn't deserve; people are thought to deserve good things if they have done right, and evil things if they have done wrong. A fourth form of injustice is to violate an agreement with someone or disappoint expectations that one knowingly nurtured. Fifth, it is considered unjust to show favoritism and preference in inappropriate circumstances. However, it is not generally necessary to be impartial; for example, one doesn't have to be impartial in the selection of friends. The claim is rather that a person should only be influenced by those considerations that should apply in a given circumstance. Finally, the idea of equality is seen by many to be a component of justice; some people may make an exception for the sake of expediency, however.

Given so many different applications of the concept of justice, it is hard to find what links them all together, and on what concept the sentiment of justice is based. Nevertheless, people do see justice as a unified concept, and do feel a sentiment of justice regardless of whether they understand its foundation. Mill says that some

help may come from looking at the history of the word. In most languages, the word's origin came from either positive law or authoritative custom. Thus, the most primitive element of justice is the idea of conformity to law. The Greeks and Romans realized that there could be bad laws, and thus justice came to be associated only to those laws that ought to exist, including those that should exist but do not. Mill also recognizes, however, that the idea of justice is often applied to areas about which we would not want legislation: for example, we always think it right that unjust acts be punished, even if we recognize that it would be inexpedient for courts to acts as punishers in particular cases. The limitation on the scope of the state's right to punish in particular cases has to do with practical concerns about extending the state's power, not with a sense that the person should not be punished.

At this point, Mill observes that while this discussion has given a true account of the origin and development of justice, it does not show a distinction from other forms of morality. The idea of a penal sanction enters into any kind of wrong; in fact, something is considered wrong only when it is thought that the person should be punished either by law, opinion, or one's own conscience. Thus, moral obligation in general comes from the idea of duty, the idea that a person may rightly be compelled to do something. He argues that this concept of deserving or not deserving punishment is the essence of moral thinking in general. Mill argues that justice can be distinguished from other forms of morality by looking at the difference between perfect and imperfect obligations. Imperfect obligations are those that no one person has the right to require of another. Perfect obligations are those that a person may demand of another. Justice corresponds with the idea of perfect obligation: it involves the idea of a personal right. In cases of justice, the person who has been wronged has had his or her moral right impinged upon; it is thus his or her moral right to seek restitution.

Commentary

Here Mill responds to the claim that utilitarianism is opposed to justice. This section is mostly descriptive, as Mill writes about the definition of justice and its historical origins. It is significant that Mill does not present his own theory about what justice requires. From Mill's perspective, justice is not an abstract concept so much as it is a sentiment about morality that many people share. Thus, in defining justice Mill looks to what other people mean by the term. It exists because people believe it exists, and it means what they believe it to mean. Starting from the popular conception of justice, Mill theorizes about what links a diverse set of ideas about justice. Ultimately,

he argues that they are united by the concept of rights, a notion he introduces in his claims about perfect and imperfect obligations.

This section is the first time that Mill spends any time writing about rights. In the next section, he will go into the idea in greater detail. For Mill, a right means that a person has a valid claim that society to protect him against any violation. Many utilitarians dismiss the idea of rights as nonsense, and many debates about utilitarianism center around whether rights exist. Mill has a different perspective on this issue, however. In the next section Mill will defend rights, and do so under a utilitarian framework.

Chapter 5: Of the Connection between Justice and Utility (Part 2)

Summary

Having just defined justice, Mill now turns to the question of whether the sentiment of justice comes from a special, unique tendency of nature, or whether it can be linked to the concerns of utility. Mill argues for the latter.

Mill contends that there are two components to justice. The first is the desire to punish a person who has done harm. This desire comes from the impulse of self-defense, and the feeling of sympathy. All animals have instincts of self- defense. However, unlike animals, humans are capable of sympathizing not only with their offspring, but with all human beings. Furthermore, humans are more intelligent, and thus have a wider range of sentiments and are able to feel that they are a part of a broader community of interests. Justice then, reflects the natural feeling of retaliation, expanded by sympathy and intellect to apply to things that harm society at large. In themselves, these feelings are not moral sentiments. Justice's moral component can be seen rather in the quality of the outrage people feel at an injustice: people can be upset by an injustice not only if it affects them individually, but if it goes against the interests of society at large; this demonstrates a moral concern.

The other component of justice is that there is an identifiable victim who suffers if justice is infringed upon. Mill argues that the idea of a right is not a concept separate from justice, but is rather a manifestation of the other aspects of justice, namely the desire for punishment and the fact that there is an assignable person who has been harmed. A right means that a person has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of that right. However, if one wants to know why society should defend this right, Mill argues that the only reason is one of general utility. The sentiment of justice derives its intensity from its link to the animalistic need for

retaliation. It gets its moral force from the "impressive" kind of utility that is involved in rights violations--namely the interest of security. People cannot do without security, and require before they can enjoy anything else. Security is so fundamental that its difference of degree as a form of utility becomes a difference in kind. It is so important that it takes on a feeling of absoluteness, of moral necessity.

Mill then observes that if justice exists independent of utility, if it is a standard in its own right that can be understood through introspection, then it is difficult to understand why questions of justice are often so debatable. In fact, there is as fierce a discussion about what is just as there is about what is useful to society, and it is guided by many conflicting ideas. For example, there is a conflict over which acts should be punished, and over the proper apportionment of punishments. In a different arena, there is disagreement over whether people should be paid more for having natural talents, and whether taxes should be graduated, or issued at a flat rate. In fact, the only way to navigate among conflicting claims of justice is to look to the source of its authority, namely, social utility.

This does not mean, however, that there is no difference between the just and the expedient, or that policy is more important than justice. Rather, justice grounded on utility is the chief part, and the most important part, of all morality; it concerns many of the most basic essentials for human well-being. Mill argues that the moral rules that forbid people to harm each other are more important than any rules of policy, rules about how societal affairs should be managed. Furthermore, the preservation of justice preserves peace among human beings. Thus, there is a very strong utility interest in preserving and enforcing justice's dictates.

Mill argues that most of the applications of justice we observe today are simply ways of maintaining the notion of moral rights just discussed. Impartiality is one rule that is partly based in these, but also comes from the very meaning of utility. The greatest happiness principle doesn't have meaning unless each person's happiness, supposed equal in degree, is valued exactly as much as somebody else's. People are seen to have an equal claim to happiness, and an equal claim to the means to happiness. Social inequalities that are not required by expediency are thus seen to be unjust.

Mill closes by observing that justice is a name for some moral requirements, which are higher on the scale of utility, and thus more important, than any others. However, there can be cases in which some other social duty is so important that it overrules one of the general rules of justice. Thus, it could be acceptable to steal in order to save a life. Mill argues that the previous discussion has resolved what had been the

only real problem with utilitarian theory. It has always been clear that cases of justice are also cases of expediency; the difference is that very different sentiments attach themselves to issues of justice and expeediency. Mill argues that he has accounted for what this feeling is; it is simply the natural feeling of resentment, moralized by being connected to social good. Justice is the name for certain social utilities that are more important than any other kind, and thus should be preserved by a feeling that is different in kind from others.

Commentary

In this final section, Mill attempts to show that justice is actually grounded on utility. He argues that the sentiment of justice itself is rooted in the human desire of retribution. However, the reason why we feel that this sentiment of retribution is a moral one, is that it occurs when not only an individual is wronged, but when society in general is wronged. In cases involving justice, the challenge to social good is particularly pernicious, and therefore the feelings about it are uniquely strong. However, justice is still grounded in utility concerns. It does not have separate origins, but can rather be measured on the same scale of utility.

Perhaps Mill's most interesting comments are those on the question of rights. Unlike many utilitarians, Mill accepts the existence of rights. However, he does not ground these rights in nature, or in God, or in metaphysics. Rather, they are grounded in utility. Rights represent the most basic social utilities necessary for human well-being; human culture cannot flourish if society does not protect individual rights. Thus, rights are fundamental to the greatest happiness principle (utility), since they must be protected for people to be able to enjoy anything else.

However, it is important to consider the implications of grounding rights in utility. As Mill admits, grounding rights in utility implies that if there were a more pressing utility concern, rights could be violated. Mill would argue that there are very few cases in which this would occur; rights are among the most important criteria for happiness. However, since utilitarianism is concerned with total happiness, it does seem possible that there is room for violation of the rights of an individual in the interest of aggregate good. One must thus ask whether utility provides sufficient protection for the individual. Mill would argue that the protection the theory does provide, small as it may be, is the only protection that can be justified.

Study Questions

Does Mill's account of justice provide adequate protection for the individual? What safeguards does Mill provide, and how might these safeguards fail?

Answer for Study Question 1 >>

Mill's account does provide some protection for the individual. Mill argues that individual rights do exist. They are grounded in utility, and are essential for well-being; thus they are binding in a way that other utility concerns are not. The individual is protected because individual security is necessary for general security. The issue of whether this protection is adequate is more difficult. Mill would argue that the individual does receive sufficient protection--that to say that rights exist outside of the context of utility is nonsense. Furthermore, all individuals' happiness is valued equally in utilitarianism. While it is possible that one person's rights might be violated in a particular case, it is because she is not being treated as any more important than any other individual. However, one could argue that by aggregating happiness, utilitarianism diminishes the individual. It is also fairly easy to come up with situations where violating rights might increase the total amount of happiness. Even if rights are to be weighted very heavily, it seems likely that having a few people suffer could benefit society as a whole; slaveholders in the antebellum American South may have made this argument in regard to slavery, for example. The concern, then, is that individual rights are left to the contingencies of a calculation.

Close

What are some of the benefits and problems with having utility as the one standard by which to judge all pleasures? (Think particularly about the issue of commensurability.)

Answer for Study Question 2 >>

The greatest benefit of having utility as a single standard by which to judge all pleasures is that it makes it possible to compare different kinds of happiness. Whether one believes that equality of happiness is preferable, or that the least happy person should be as happy as is possible, it is still necessary to have a way of comparing different people and different kinds of happiness: utility provides a single measurement that allows for precisely this kind of comparison. This single measurement is particularly significant in the area of public policy, where we need real measurements of how people are benefiting or suffering from various policy

measures. However, having a single standard for happiness also has problematic elements. For example, one could argue that having a single standard inappropriately devalues certain kinds of pleasure. How does one compare the pleasure of good health with the pleasure of watching television? Even if health is weighted more strongly than television viewing, one could argue that the two kinds of pleasures are different in kind. The mere act of comparing the two, however, implies that they are fundamentally the same. Beyond the question of whether experiences should be ranked according to their happiness quotients, there also arises the question of how to measure happiness at all. Many people cope with extreme suffering while maintaining the psychological signs of "happiness." However, the fact that people are able to remain "happy" does not mean that they are well off or have a good quality of life. Thus, this single standard may also serve to hide both inequality and grave suffering. This must lead us to wonder whether happiness is the correct standard by which to judge moral concerns.

Close

Why does Mill say that utilitarianism can't be proven? What "considerations" does he offer in favor of the theory?

Answer for Study Question 3 >>

Mill says that utilitarianism can't be proven because it is impossible to prove first principles. First principles are the foundation of arguments; they are not facts that can be tested, but rather represent the system in which those facts make sense. Thus, since utilitarianism is an argument for utility as a first principle, it cannot be proven in the traditional sense. However, Mill also argues that utilitarianism can be proven in a broader sense; we do not have to arbitrarily choose first principles. Rather, it is possible to deliberate on reasons in favor and in opposition to given principles. Thus, in his essay Mill attempts to provide considerations (as opposed to proofs) in favor of utilitarianism. Mill argues that we desire the things we do because they are a means to happiness or are included in our definition of happiness. Happiness must be understood broadly, as including such general concepts as the flourishing of human culture, and the acquisition of those things that we desire. Mill says that the reader must decide for himself if this account is plausible. However, even if this account is correct, Mill does not show that people should be concerned with general happiness instead of their own. Mill simply assumes this idea, because

he believes that morality must be impartial between all people. His failure to "prove" this would seem to weaken his argument, however.

Close

How does Mill define happiness? How does this affect utility as a measuring device?

Why is Mill so concerned about showing that his theory allows for ultimate sanctions? Do you agree with Mill that punishment is the essence of morality?

Pamela is walking through the forest when she happens upon a man who is about to kill five people. He tells her that if she kills one of those people, he will let the other four go free. Pamela has reason to believe he will keep his promise. What would Mill say she should do, and why? If you disagree with Mill, explain why.

How does impartiality fit into Mill's arguments for utilitarianism? Is his assumption correct that morality requires impartiality?

Mill structures much of his essay as a reply to previous criticisms about utilitarianism. How does this affect Mill's presentation of his arguments? Stylistically, does this add or detract from Mill's discussion?

What is the role of education and socialization in Mill's theory? To what degree does Mill believe people's values are shaped by their social environment?