Mill’s Utilitarianism can lead to wrong moral decisions. Discuss (40)
Developing Bentham’s ‘An Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Education’ John Stuart
Mill, Bentham’s pupil, wrote ‘Utilitarianism’ - an essay discussing how there should be
utilitarianist principles for all situations, otherwise known as rule Utilitarianism. Mill taking a
eudaimonistic approach (“actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness”),
results in several flaws that could lead to wrong moral decisions.
Firstly, Mill’s utilitarianism distinguishes what higher and lower pleasures are, depending on the
short or long term happiness of the action. At face value, Mill’s idea here weighed up against
Bentham’s would seem more attractive as it appeals to common sense that some pleasures are
higher or lower than others however Mill believes that pleasures of the mind are higher in quality
than pleasures of the body but without eating and drinking (Mill’s consideration of lower
pleasures) then none of his higher pleasures, like admiring artwork and reading poetry would
matter as people would starve. Mill also doesn’t take into the fact that some people, many
during his time, would not have access to nearly as many ‘higher pleasures’ as he would, so his
opinion does not fit everyone in every circumstance which is what rule utilitarianism is trying to
accomplish. Not only that but Mill says that “it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied” implying that lower pleasures are such because they are short term and higher
pleasures because they last for longer. This may seem coherent as naturally, one would strive
for long-term pleasure however no one can really distinguish what a higher or lower pleasure is
as it is a matter of opinion. Therefore Mill’s point here is of no practical use.
Another flaw in Mill’s utilitarianism is that the theory is teleological so the decision of an action
being right or wrong is based on its consequences, not the action itself. Now, one may see this
as a good thing as the effects of an action, depending on the circumstance, could seem a more
necessary focus than the action itself but looking at Bernard Williams’ example of the jungle
where an explorer comes across soldiers who put the decision to the explorer whether he would
shoot one indigenous person (out of the twenty captured for their oppressive regime by the
soldiers) or let the soldiers shoot all twenty. Taking Mill’s utilitarianism the explorer should kill
the one person as the quality of happiness of nineteen people is more than the one. However
you cannot predict the future, because the soldier could just lie and then still kill all the other
people, so not looking at the action itself and whether it is intrinsically good or not could result
in long-term pain. A critique of Mill would be from Bernard Williams who would support this
point as he believed that no moral theory ought to demand the taking of an innocent life.
Although Williams’ approach is extreme so may not be seen as sensible, not every situation that
is approached with utilitarianism would result in lives taken, it does make the point that we
cannot apply rules expecting them to work for every situation because, to be frank, Williams’
example killing one person or allowing soldiers to kill twenty is different from deciding whether
to go to a party or stay at home and work.
Developing Bentham’s ‘An Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Education’ John Stuart
Mill, Bentham’s pupil, wrote ‘Utilitarianism’ - an essay discussing how there should be
utilitarianist principles for all situations, otherwise known as rule Utilitarianism. Mill taking a
eudaimonistic approach (“actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness”),
results in several flaws that could lead to wrong moral decisions.
Firstly, Mill’s utilitarianism distinguishes what higher and lower pleasures are, depending on the
short or long term happiness of the action. At face value, Mill’s idea here weighed up against
Bentham’s would seem more attractive as it appeals to common sense that some pleasures are
higher or lower than others however Mill believes that pleasures of the mind are higher in quality
than pleasures of the body but without eating and drinking (Mill’s consideration of lower
pleasures) then none of his higher pleasures, like admiring artwork and reading poetry would
matter as people would starve. Mill also doesn’t take into the fact that some people, many
during his time, would not have access to nearly as many ‘higher pleasures’ as he would, so his
opinion does not fit everyone in every circumstance which is what rule utilitarianism is trying to
accomplish. Not only that but Mill says that “it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied” implying that lower pleasures are such because they are short term and higher
pleasures because they last for longer. This may seem coherent as naturally, one would strive
for long-term pleasure however no one can really distinguish what a higher or lower pleasure is
as it is a matter of opinion. Therefore Mill’s point here is of no practical use.
Another flaw in Mill’s utilitarianism is that the theory is teleological so the decision of an action
being right or wrong is based on its consequences, not the action itself. Now, one may see this
as a good thing as the effects of an action, depending on the circumstance, could seem a more
necessary focus than the action itself but looking at Bernard Williams’ example of the jungle
where an explorer comes across soldiers who put the decision to the explorer whether he would
shoot one indigenous person (out of the twenty captured for their oppressive regime by the
soldiers) or let the soldiers shoot all twenty. Taking Mill’s utilitarianism the explorer should kill
the one person as the quality of happiness of nineteen people is more than the one. However
you cannot predict the future, because the soldier could just lie and then still kill all the other
people, so not looking at the action itself and whether it is intrinsically good or not could result
in long-term pain. A critique of Mill would be from Bernard Williams who would support this
point as he believed that no moral theory ought to demand the taking of an innocent life.
Although Williams’ approach is extreme so may not be seen as sensible, not every situation that
is approached with utilitarianism would result in lives taken, it does make the point that we
cannot apply rules expecting them to work for every situation because, to be frank, Williams’
example killing one person or allowing soldiers to kill twenty is different from deciding whether
to go to a party or stay at home and work.
