Rowland 1

Thomas RowlandPSC 3192W3 October 2016

Utilitarianism: A Critique

One of the most common debates in regards to the organization of society is that of where

the origins of justice come from. It is a discussion many great philosophers, from Socrates to

Kant, have taken part in, however, no conclusion has ever been reached. One individual, named

Jeremy Bentham, attempted to outline a theory in which utility is the core source of justice, and

order should therefore focus on it. Bentham’s theory was lambasted as weak, ineffective, and a

security threat by many thinkers to follow, until John Stewart Mill attempted to take to his

defense in the nineteenth century. Mill had the benefit of several decades of refutations of

Bentham to his advantage, and he was able to structure an adjusted theory based on that

information, however, it still has several major shortcomings. Utilitarianism, as Mill describes it,

is unfeasible because it favors the intellect too heavily, ignores conflicting interests, makes

assumptions on the fact that man is inherently good, and comes in conflict with Mill’s earlier

theory that individualism is the basis for justice and liberty.

To explore this claim, utilitarianism will be examined through three frameworks

A.) Utilitarianism’s strengthsB.) Utilitarianism’s weaknessesC.) It’s consistency through the lens of Mill’s On Liberty

Utilitarianism’s Strengths

The main strength of Utilitarianism is that its main a priori assumption is logically

grounded on the natural desire of humans to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. The central crux of

Mill’s theory is the Greatest Happiness Principle, which states that “actions are right in that they

tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness

Rowland 2

is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of

pleasure1.” This rational observation that people seek comfort and try to avoid agony is furthered

by Mill’s stratification of pleasures; he explains that there are some types of pleasure that are

higher than others and that the former is only obtainable by humans, thus separating man from

rodent and swine2. Mill is also careful to acknowledge that people are not expected to be happy

perpetually; this is because happiness is not a means, but an end where one exists “as far as

possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality3.”

Happiness is not a constant state of rapture, and naturally there will be moments of joy and grief

throughout the course of one’s life4. Humans are constantly seeking to mitigate pain, but they

know that it is impossible to completely avoid it. Maximizing utility is therefore the ultimate

goal.

These assumptions are all logically tied to basic human nature; it is rational to assume

that people would not want to introduce themselves to greater harm than necessary. Such a

thought process can generally be seen in any cost-benefit analysis conducted by a person when

deciding whether to do something that can bring harm to themselves or the community at large.

An example of this would be a man in a university library happening upon an unaccompanied

laptop with no witnesses around. The individual is faced with a decision of whether to steal the

computer or leave it be. It is a commonly-known fact in this particular library that there is a

series of modern cameras stationed throughout the common areas, meaning that the likelihood of

getting caught is high. If the man steals the laptop, he would first bring pain to its rightful owner;

if he is caught, he would be subject to penalties, such as fines, expulsion, and imprisonment,

1John S. Mill, “Utilitarianism,” in Utilitarianism and Other Essays, ed. Alan Ryan (England: Penguin Books, 1987), 278. 2 Mill, Utilitarianism, 279. 3 Mill, Utilitarianism, 283. 4 Mill Utilitarianism, 284.

Rowland 3

which would bring a larger level of pain upon himself. If he chooses to leave the laptop, he

would not be subject to any of the aforementioned penalties, thus leaving him in a better off

position. While this is a more rudimentary example of utilitarian thought, it illustrates the

usefulness of Mill’s primary assumption about individual human nature because of how easily

and commonly it can be applied to a real life predicament. Furthermore, by acknowledging that

there is a hierarchy of pleasures, Mill protects his theory from comparing humans to animals; in

doing so, he makes utilitarianism theoretically more viable for handling the complexities that

come with general lifecycle events. One of such complexities is the ongoing battle between joy

and grief; one can remark that life is depressing and pointless, therefore concepts about

maximizing pleasure are useless. Mill, however, successfully fights this by arguing that it is true

that life is not supposed to be constantly euphoric, but it is also not a Sisyphean endeavor in

futility either; by simply trying to minimize suffering, one is still upholding the utilitarian ideal.

While Mill is successful in handling utilitarianism in the sense of the individual, it is in his

strategy for explaining how it works in a public setting where his arguments lose their

effectiveness.

Utilitarianism’s Weaknesses

Upon a reading of Utilitarianism, one can draw the conclusion that Mill assumes that

society is consists of, or is intended for, intellects, novel ideas, and a lack of greed and conflict.

Mill’s detrimental lack of consideration for “fools” poses an issue for the theory because he

clearly preferences the mind over the body. Mill explains that human beings have higher

faculties than those of beasts because animals cannot experience the same higher pleasures5. He

takes this premise to explain that the pleasures of the mind are paramount to the simplistic ones

5 Mill, Utilitarianism, 279.

Rowland 4

of the body. For this reason, no human would consent to be an animal, according to Mill6.

Corollary to this seemingly reasonable claim, however, is his statement that: “no instructed

person would [consent to] be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish

and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better

satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs7.” Mill refers to the more learned people as “beings

of higher faculties,” and he gives an explanation for why they would not be persuaded to

abandon higher intellectual pleasures for lower bodily pleasures, which states: “it is better to be

Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied8.” A being with higher faculties would not desire

cheaper thrills just because, in the moment, it would raise his utility more drastically. After

explaining why a more sophisticated person would not willingly descend to lower sources of

utility, Mill neglects to speak about the person who finds himself without any instruction as to

how to maximize intellectual pleasures. Instead, Mill refers to them as “rascals” and “dunces”

and gives no prescription for how someone can obtain the higher pleasures if they were trapped

in the lower levels through no choice of their own. In fact, utilitarian theory seems to abandon

people of this type because, according to Mill, one cannot reach lower pleasures from higher

pleasures unless they became fully incapable of experiencing the latter9. Although this particular

clause was stated in reference to people slipping from high to low, it is all that is said in regards

to shifting between the two types of utility. There is no claim about being from the bottom

looking up, whether it be by pure circumstance or choice.

A second issue with utilitarianism is the way in which it considers humankind to

collectively optimize their utility. According to Mill, a perfectly just conception of utility means

6 Mill, Utilitarianism, 280.7 Ibid. 8 Mill, Utilitarianism, 281.9 Ibid.

Rowland 5

that if everyone maximizes their own pleasure, the overall aggregate utility of the society will

increase because, as it is for the individual, happiness is the end and not the means10. So long as

everyone can focus on maximizing their own utility, then justice will exist in a society. This

consideration, however, fails to address the issue of conflicting sources of pleasure. Mill does not

give a remedy for situations in which a legitimate source of utility for one individual is also a

severe, and equally legitimate, detriment to another person’s ability to seek pleasure. For

example, take two next-door neighbors, named Person A and Person B, in a society where there

is no legislation regarding gun ownership or use. Person A purchases a gun for self-defense

purposes, but Person B has a strong fear of guns. The two have never been on good terms, for

irrelevant reasons, but have never come close to escalating to violence in the past. While Person

A is experiencing heightened pleasure through a feeling of security, Person B is now living in

fear of his neighbor. Person A has not infringed upon any right of Person B, nor has he

threatened anyone in the past, including Person B, and he owns the gun for legitimate self-

defense purposes with no malicious intent for anyone, but his ownership of a weapon is causing

a sense of fear in those around him. The only way for Person B’s utility to increase is to augment

his perception of safety, either through him removing himself from the area or convincing Person

A, who had done no harm, to remove his weapon. In this case, aggregate utility will neither

increase or decrease because there are two polar opposite reactions, but, at the same time, no one

in this case is violating any rights or laws. Mill provides no real remedy for a situation where

utility for two individuals can come from completely opposite perspectives on the same issuei.

An additional issue that Mill’s utilitarian theory fails to address is the handling of

jealousy and greed stemming from the concept of relative gains in cases of aggregate utility. 10 Mill, Utilitarianism, 282-283.ii Mill does speak generally on the subject of contradictory sources of utility at the end of chapter 3, but he talks about it in reference to beliefs and interests of the individual compared to the whole, more so than in the sense of raising or lowering utility. This will be discussed in the next section.

Rowland 6

While he generally warns against the two emotions at times, he gives no strong answer for how

they can be prevented or their effects mitigated. Mill appears to be assuming that aggregate

happiness increases or decreases in terms of absolute values for the individual and that one is not

concerned about the state of the other; if each person focuses on themselves, then augmentation

of the collective will follow. However, looking at such an assumption from a pragmatic

perspective, one has to question its efficacy. For example, one can imagine Person A and B

again, they are still not on good terms, but the gun is no longer involved for the sake of this

example. Instead, Person A decides to go to the opera in order to increase his happiness, in line

with Mill’s intellectual pleasures. Person B is aware of this and decides to go to the museum to

do the same, but after a while he realizes he is not having as enjoyable of an experience as he

suspects Person A is having, although his own utility increased absolutely. Person B therefore

decides to gain the upper hand by stealing some of Person A’s utility by doing something that

would adversely affect his experience in a way that does not simultaneously lead to negative

consequences for Person B. Although Mill would admonish such an act as barbaric, his

utilitarian theory gives no strong defense for why someone would not feel jealous or greedy

when it comes to maximizing his utility compared to others. His only defense against this is that

human care and practice can remove this element11, but the theory in itself has no real method of

encouraging or enforcing this.

Utilitarianism from Mill’s perspective is strong in its understanding of the person in

relations to himself, but it assumes an overall sense of goodness on behalf of his or her relations

to the community at large. He oversimplifies the nature of individual human intelligence to

assume that everyone has, or is at least driven to obtain, the moral and practical education

necessary to seek higher pleasures over bodily pleasures, and he gives no realistic and concrete

11 Mill, Utilitarianism, 286

Rowland 7

resolutions to handling conflict and greed outside of issuing normative statements about how

people ought to interact in a utilitarian community.

Consistency Through the Lens of On Liberty

Utilitarianism is the more recent work of Mill, although it is commonly accepted that On

Liberty is his more influential piece. In between publication of the two, a massive shift in focus

occurs that renders the main arguments and premises of the two essays to be in complete

contradiction regarding how justice can be found. The most blatant inconsistency is Mill’s

dealings with the role of the community and individualism. Utilitarianism generally accepts the

role of society as crucial and admonishes the idea of individualism, while On Liberty does the

opposite and supports individualism as a key to liberty. In a utilitarian system, people do not

have enough time to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of every single act and its ramifications in

the face of utility12. To know which course of action will produce the greatest utility, one must

look to the experience and thoughts of others in the community. As Mill says:

The proposition that happiness is the end and aim of morality does not mean that no road ought to be laid down to that goal, or that persons going thither should not be advised to take one direction rather than another. Men really ought to leave off talking a kind of nonsense on this subject, which they would neither talk nor listen to on other matters of practical concernment. 13

People do not have to weigh the benefits and consequences of each action because others in

society will have already done so and can provide precedent. This process is done through

socialization and a desire to be in alignment with other people14. The fact that humans naturally

want to be a part of society and distant from “savage independence” is a driving force behind this

idea15. Furthermore, habits should be formed to enforce the idea of a cohesive community

12 Mill, Utilitarianism, 295.13 Mill, Utilitarianism, 296.14 Mill, Utilitarianism, 303. 15 Mill, Utilitarianism, 304.

Rowland 8

because “society between equals can only exist on the understanding that interests of all are to be

regarded equally16,” and thus requires ends to be in cooperation with others, and feelings to be in

union with one another17. This ties into the idea of opposing interests and values and suggests

that it is important that one’s aims and those of another do not conflict and “that he is not

opposing himself to what they really wish for, but is… promoting it18” Essentially, Mill is

arguing on behalf of conformance to the public’s norms, even if one finds themselves at odds

with it. This means that in cases such as the gun example given earlier, it would be requisite that

the individual who finds himself most in contradiction with the ideals of the society cedes his

viewpoint.

The idea of conforming to the public’s habits and norms is a major contradiction with the

idea of freedom of expression laid out in On Liberty, where Mill warns specifically against the

tyranny of the majority group censoring the ideas of those who do not agree. The most important

part of this thesis is his argument in favor of the unrestricted liberty to state one’s opinion freely.

As Mill argues, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the

contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he

had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind19.” This is based on the premise that no

one is infallible and able to determine what is true and good and what is false and bad, and that

one could be unknowingly shunning what will become the truth or ignoring a falsehood that

could make the truth stronger20. In fact, Mill here believes that non-conformity is actually very

important for the advancement of society and people with unique ideas should try to differ from

16 Mill, Utilitarianism, 304.17 Ibid. 18 Mill, Utilitarianism, 306.19 John S. Mill, “On Liberty,” in On Liberty and Other Writings, ed. Stefan Collini (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 20. 20 Mill, On Liberty, 21.

Rowland 9

the masses; to not do so is a hindrance on human progress21. Therefore, Mill actually decries the

same socialization he later speaks of in Utilitarianism and argues that justice comes from the

individual being able to break free from the bonds of society.

In writing Utilitarianism, Mill contradicts his original individualistic theories by saying

that humankind’s interests should seek to be in conjunction with each other. By doing this, Mill

presents a difficult dilemma for society; it is impossible to accept the idea that justice comes

from utilitarianism through socialization, habit and a convergence of ideas and to concurrently

accept the proposal that justice comes from the individual free thought that drives change.

Viewing the original gun example discussed earlier, one can see how the two theories come into

conflict. In the utilitarian model, Mill argues that one of the two should support the other and

cede his view for the sake of the community. In On Liberty, however, both individuals would

have the right to hold their own opinion, and the one with the less commonly accepted viewpoint

would be free to legitimately oppose the alternative without fear of censorship. “Savage

independence,” as Mill describes the idea of nonconformity in Utilitarianism22, is a sentiment

that cannot be reconciled with free expression of ideas and individualism. One can make the

claim that Utilitarianism, being the younger of the two works, has the burden of proof for

arguing why it is the truly better theory for justice than On Liberty’s theses; since Utilitarianism

falls in contradiction with the more heavily-favored right to freedom of expression, it fails to

accomplish this requisite goal.

Conclusion

One has to wonder why there is such a contrast in opinions between two works that are

by the same author with only a few years in between their respective publications. Perhaps Mill

21 Mill, On Liberty 67,70. 22 Mill, Utilitarianism, 304.

Rowland 10

believed that individualism is a more juvenile thought and that utilitarianism’s system of

conformity is more harshly realistic to how societies actually govern themselves, or maybe Mill

simply intended to try and defend a theory that had been largely discounted for its weaknesses to

provoke a more thorough discussion. While Mill helped to propose a more legitimate

understanding of utilitarianism and was able to refine the statements previously given by

Bentham, he still fell short in his attempt to legitimize it as a system of governance beyond the

individual. This flaw could possibly be the fact that it is simply not practical to have an aggregate

utility for an entire society; perhaps its only efficacy truly lies within an individual context and it

is destined to do nothing more. This would suggest that future advancements of the theory may

be better suited by aiming the scope to a lower standard.

Bibliography

Mill, John S. “On Liberty.” in On Liberty and Other Writings, edited by Stefan Collini, 5-115. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Mill, John S. “Utilitarianism.” in Utilitarianism and Other Essays, edited by Alan Ryan, 272-338. England: Penguin Books, 1987.