Utilitarianism

Mill begins the article breaking down the true meaning of utilitarianism. He is aware the many people look at the root word ‘utility’ and assume and that utility takes upon a higher precedent than pleasure. Utilitarianism is used by people as a way to promote happiness/pleasure for the majority amount people. Mill explains, “Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, who maintained the theory of utility, meant by it, not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself…” Further in the article, Mill becomes is in supporter of the Greatest Happiness Principle that is an extension of utility as it “…holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wing as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” This means, from this way of living that the pursuit of life is driven by all things pleasurable. 

Mill continues on and responds to the critiques of comparing this way of living to swines. Mill feels that comparing animals to Epicurean principles as a way of degrading the principles it’s based upon. Mill explains, “…a beast’s pleasures do not satisfy a human being’s conceptions of happiness…” I agree, I don’t think utilitarianism is pig philosophy. The only reason why I could think someone would compare a way of Utility to the likes of animals is, because of the simplistic nature of this theory. When I think of the comparison between animals and human pleasures, I think of the lifestyle of a household dog or cat. Cats and dogs don’t have many responsibilities besides eating, playing, sleeping, and peeing/pooping. That might be the way in which an animal is simplistically living their life pleasurably. People who follow the utilitarian principles aim to live their lives pleasurably, but it might not always be easily attainable.

The bulk of utilitarianism is based on a person’s ability to maximize on their pleasures. Further along in the article, Mill begins to look at the differing kinds of pleasures that are experienced and pursued among people. Mill explains there are lower pleasures and higher pleasures that person can choose to have in their life. Mill states, “…no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool…the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs…” I thought this statement was very interesting, because it made me think that the intelligence of a person will determine the kind of things they deem pleasurable in life. This relates back to comparative judgement about the pleasures of human and animals. The experiences and livelihoods of those species will dictate what is considered pleasurable for them. A person may choose lower pleasures because of how easily they are attained. Mill explains, “A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it a more points, than one of an inferior type…” I think that’s a strong argument as to why a person would choose lower pleasures than higher pleasures. That way of living doesn’t follow the doctrine of utilitarianism, as it seems that higher pleasures will cause a person to experience more work and suffering in their life. 

Word Count: 554