1

John Stuart MillJohn Stuart Mill1806 – 18731806 – 1873

BackgroundBackground

A child prodigy who had a A child prodigy who had a nervous breakdown at 20 and nervous breakdown at 20 and who’s life was saved by who’s life was saved by reading Wordsworth and reading Wordsworth and Coleridge.Coleridge.

Would the Lyrical Ballads Would the Lyrical Ballads (Wordsworth) have saved us?(Wordsworth) have saved us?

What Mill disliked about Bentham’s view:What Mill disliked about Bentham’s view:

It failed to differentiate us from It failed to differentiate us from animals.animals.

It failed to account for the fact that It failed to account for the fact that we think of some pleasures we think of some pleasures

(achieving an A grade) superior to (achieving an A grade) superior to others (playing computer games).others (playing computer games).

A qualitative distinctionA qualitative distinction..

Mill wanted to argue that Mill wanted to argue that some pleasures were some pleasures were

“higher”“higher”

“It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (Mill p 260)

Here’s a list of pleasures. List them in Here’s a list of pleasures. List them in descending order of enjoyableness? descending order of enjoyableness? Eating an ice creamEating an ice cream Eating oystersEating oysters Listening to Britney SpearsListening to Britney Spears Listening to MozartListening to Mozart Going round an art galleryGoing round an art gallery Watching NeighboursWatching Neighbours Reading a novel or poetryReading a novel or poetry Running a raceRunning a race Playing RugbyPlaying Rugby Watching RugbyWatching Rugby Doing a favour for a friendDoing a favour for a friend

Was Mill just a Was Mill just a snob??????? snob???????

Mill argued that the lower Mill argued that the lower pleasures were of the pleasures were of the

mind, and the higher of the mind, and the higher of the body.body.

He felt that, after the lower He felt that, after the lower bodily needs were met we bodily needs were met we could attend to the higher could attend to the higher spiritual, moral, cultural spiritual, moral, cultural pleasures. (Who decides? pleasures. (Who decides? Only someone who’s Only someone who’s experienced experienced bothboth))

Vardy and Grosch Vardy and Grosch comment: comment:

“ “On this view, a person who eats and drinks in On this view, a person who eats and drinks in moderation in order to design elegant, moderation in order to design elegant, ecologically –sound clothing is morally superior to ecologically –sound clothing is morally superior to the person who is anxious to produce quick, the person who is anxious to produce quick, profit-making designs in order to pursue the profit-making designs in order to pursue the pleasures of sex, food and drink” (1994:79)pleasures of sex, food and drink” (1994:79)

W.D. Ross argued that this W.D. Ross argued that this produces counter-intuitive produces counter-intuitive

outcomes outcomes

Example: who do we save in Example: who do we save in the burning bus, our son or a the burning bus, our son or a famous heart surgeon who famous heart surgeon who has potential to save has potential to save thousands?thousands?

Ross argued we have a Ross argued we have a prima facie (before anything prima facie (before anything else) duty to save our son else) duty to save our son

DutyDuty InstinctInstinct LoveLove

override………..override……….. Reason (The Utilitarian application Reason (The Utilitarian application

of GHP)of GHP)

SummarySummary

Bentham’s hedonistic utilitarianism isBentham’s hedonistic utilitarianism is

Unworkable (imperfect knowledge + Unworkable (imperfect knowledge + daft idea of utils)daft idea of utils)

SelfishSelfish

Counter-intuitive (happiness is not the Counter-intuitive (happiness is not the same as pleasure)same as pleasure)

Summary: Mill Summary: Mill

Mill’s isMill’s is Snobbish (why isn’t my rap music as Snobbish (why isn’t my rap music as

good as your Mozart?)good as your Mozart?) Counter-intuitive (duty and love Counter-intuitive (duty and love

contradict it)contradict it) Ambiguous (was Mill an Ambiguous (was Mill an Act Act or or Rule Rule

Utilitarian?? Or a virtue ethicist?)Utilitarian?? Or a virtue ethicist?)

Act or Rule Act or Rule

Act = Act = follow the action that follow the action that maximises pleasure (Bentham) or maximises pleasure (Bentham) or happiness (Mill)happiness (Mill)

Rule = follow the rule which maximises happiness. Mill talks about “guidelines” proved by experience, like a nautical almanac.

Rule Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism

The correctness of a rule is determined by the The correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when it is amount of good it brings about when it is followed.followed.

Or……..the practice of following a rule (always Or……..the practice of following a rule (always stopping at red lights) creates greater happiness stopping at red lights) creates greater happiness than allowing people discretion (eg stopping only than allowing people discretion (eg stopping only when something’s coming the other way).when something’s coming the other way).

The British v the Italian or Greek worldview!!!!!

Which was Mill?Which was Mill?In Utilitarianism Chapter 2 Mill states:“Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness … by happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain” (1991:137)

But on the other But on the other hand…..hand…..

When defending rights, he seems to be a When defending rights, he seems to be a rule utilitarian:rule utilitarian:

“ “To have a right, then, is ..to have To have a right, then, is ..to have something which society ought to defend something which society ought to defend me in possession of. If the objector goes me in possession of. If the objector goes on to ask, why it ought, I can give no on to ask, why it ought, I can give no other reason than general utility.” other reason than general utility.”

Is this the same as the traffic light Is this the same as the traffic light example???example???

General happiness = everyone protects General happiness = everyone protects rightsrights

Maybe he took a Maybe he took a compromise position compromise position

Justice demands we keep the rules…Justice demands we keep the rules…unless…there’s some overriding social unless…there’s some overriding social duty to break it in duty to break it in this individual this individual case case eg to save a life eg to save a life

A pragmatic rule utilitarian view?A pragmatic rule utilitarian view? Or is Mill a virtue ethicist? He argues Or is Mill a virtue ethicist? He argues

for maximising “not the agent’s for maximising “not the agent’s happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether” (1991:142) this happiness altogether” (1991:142) this requires requires sympathysympathy and and noblenessnobleness of of character, he argues.character, he argues.

Mill appeals to virtueMill appeals to virtue

Mill concedes that for everyone to Mill concedes that for everyone to accept the utility of society needs “a accept the utility of society needs “a certain certain nobleness nobleness or or generosity of generosity of charactercharacter” (1991:142)” (1991:142)

So for social utility to thrive, we So for social utility to thrive, we need:need:

Education for all (eg to transcend selfishness)Education for all (eg to transcend selfishness)

Elimination of poverty (eg so all can enjoy higher Elimination of poverty (eg so all can enjoy higher pleasures of music and books)pleasures of music and books)

Are we back to Aristotle’s habits Are we back to Aristotle’s habits of character?of character?

19

Summary: multilevel Summary: multilevel utilitarianismutilitarianism

19

Level 1: Follow rules which social experience has found promote the general happiness. These are guidelines. he uses the phrase “secondary principles”.

Level 2: Revert to act utilitarianism when facing a moral dilemma. Mill himself argues it’s okay to kidnap a surgeon who refuses to come with you in order to save the lfie of your friend. The greatest happiness principle Millc alls the “primary principle”.

Case Study 1Case Study 1

Charlotte CordayCharlotte Corday

Charlotte came from a small French village in 1794 in order to kill Marat, who was responsible for listing thousands for death by guillotine in the Great terror of 1793.

Her final wordsHer final words

She was caught and She was caught and guillotined. When asked guillotined. When asked whether she had anything to whether she had anything to say she replied:say she replied:

““Yes. I succeeded!”Yes. I succeeded!”

Case Study 2Case Study 2

Titus Titus Oates Oates

Titus OatesTitus Oates

Caught in a blizzard for a week Caught in a blizzard for a week without enough food, Titus walks out without enough food, Titus walks out into the storm:into the storm:

““I may be gone some considerable I may be gone some considerable time,” he says, (and was).time,” he says, (and was).

Case Study 3 Case Study 3

The East Lancs division come in on The East Lancs division come in on the Gallipoli beaches in the second the Gallipoli beaches in the second wave at Cape Helles in 1915.wave at Cape Helles in 1915.

One of the first VCs they won was One of the first VCs they won was (name unknown, will fill in)(name unknown, will fill in)

He threw himself on a grenade his He threw himself on a grenade his colleague had dropped, so saving the colleague had dropped, so saving the platoonplatoon

Jim and the IndiansJim and the Indians

Bernard Williams argued that Bernard Williams argued that Utilitarian George would take job Utilitarian George would take job working in a chemical research plant working in a chemical research plant if it was the only job available and….if it was the only job available and….

Jim when faced with the choice of Jim when faced with the choice of killing one Indian himself so that 20 killing one Indian himself so that 20 were saved from certain death, were saved from certain death, would kill the one Indian.would kill the one Indian.

But you and I wouldn’t necessarily do But you and I wouldn’t necessarily do either. Why?either. Why?

““A feature of utilitarianism is that it A feature of utilitarianism is that it cuts out a kind of consideration…. cuts out a kind of consideration…. that each of us is specially that each of us is specially responsible for what he does, rather responsible for what he does, rather than for what other people do. This is than for what other people do. This is an idea closely connected with the an idea closely connected with the value of value of integrityintegrity." ." 

So Utilitarianism goes against the So Utilitarianism goes against the idea of personal integrity. idea of personal integrity.