Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mills
Chapter two of Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mills essentially runs through the basic tenets and definitions of Utilitarianism, and also addresses some important objections and misconceptions of the philosophy. Sadly, although Mills tries to rescue much of the vocabulary of Utilitarianism from public misconception and appropriation, he seems to have failed on this account. Of course the true understanding of his philosophy does not lie with the masses, but instead with those who have entered the realm of higher pleasures, so the problem with the misunderstandings can be considered ultimately moot. Mills stresses that utility is not in opposition to pleasure, but instead an absence of pain. In other words, utility is not something that should be considered in contrast to pleasure; instead it should be considered in unity with pleasure as part of pleasure's inherent qualities. Utility, as defined here, serves as what Mills considers the very foundation of morality as well as the starting point for human desire. This duality of utility is what enables it to be functional as a practice. Of course this definition does not mean that it is morally correct for anyone to pursue any and everything that makes them happy on a personal level
In general, Mill's argument is that utilitarianism is not concerned with individual happiness, but with the overall happiness of humanity. This assertion is in an answer to criticisms that utilitarianism attempts to compare things of far different attributes and levels. Harwood then asserts that this makes any duty to our friends impossible, and it also forces us into the position of utter poverty that excessive altruism inspires. Finally, Mill argues that sacrificing happiness is only desirable if it will lead to more happiness generally. " He feels that the principle of utility forces an individual to see the world in impartial terms and by this it denies the practitioner any exercise of integrity or genuine preference. With this in mind it is clear that for an individual to pursue pleasure that serves only himself, he would be committing an act that is morally wrong. The need to live in squalor could be considered appropriate in some cases, such as humanitarian work, but it is unlikely that this kind of lifestyle would ever appropriately fit into the concept of higher pleasure. This leads back to the most basic question about utilitarianism: Is the greatest happiness principle the ultimate foundation of morality? One very popular work that criticizes Mill's is Sterling Harwood's essay "Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism. To borrow a technique from Mill himself, the truth of the matter is that no matter what topic you are tackling the problem of perspective will inevitably come up, and so this kind of criticism is really not much of a criticism at all since anything designed to topple a theory must first come at it from common ground. In other words, viewing the Mona Lisa could be compared to the same level of pleasure, or utility, as eating a piece of fine European chocolate. To practice true utilitarianism an objective viewpoint needs to be taken, almost to the point of adopting a third-person viewpoint on our own lives. Not only these facts, but the idea of pleasure in all things necessarily cheapens the intellectual or spiritual elements that are inherently present within higher pleasurable activities. The most intriguing, and the most significant, section of chapter two is the discussion and distinction of the higher and lower pleasures. He also contends that in order to develop an appropriate idea of the spectrum of pleasures one must experience a broad range of pleasures, both lower and higher. However, the point of utilitarianism is to illustrate the idea that some acts produce more happiness than others, so the goal is to choose those which bring the most joy; other acts bring about more pain, and so these should be avoided.
Common topics in this essay:
Objections Utilitarianism,
Mona Lisa,
Sadly Mills,
Mill's Mill,
Finally Mill,
Stuart Mills,
lower pleasures,
pleasures lower,
Sterling Harwood's,
pleasures lower pleasures,
viewing mona lisa,
distinction lower pleasures,
live squalor,
mill's argument,
viewing mona,
compare attributes,
pleasure instead,
distinction lower,
common attack,
mona lisa,
|
Acceptance Essays
