John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism: A Critical Analysis
Mill’s Utilitarianism: A Critical Analysis
1. The Principle of Utility and its Criticisms
John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism posits that the principle of happiness, or utility, is the ultimate moral criterion. Actions are deemed moral if they promote happiness and immoral if they produce the opposite. This principle, Mill argues, aligns with human desires. However, this equation of the desired with the desirable has drawn criticism:
- The Fallacy of Composition: Critics argue that while individuals may desire their own happiness, this doesn’t imply a universal desire for the happiness of all. Individual happiness can sometimes depend on the misfortune of others.
- The Naturalistic Fallacy: Critics like G.E. Moore contend that Mill commits the naturalistic fallacy by deriving a value judgment (what ought to be) from a descriptive statement (what is). Simply because something is desired doesn’t necessarily mean it is desirable.
However, Mill’s optimistic view of human nature suggests a close relationship between virtue and happiness. He believes that morally developed individuals find pleasure in promoting the good, and that true happiness lies in the harmonious development of both physical and intellectual capacities. A rejection of higher pleasures would be self-destructive, while a lack of solidarity would harm the community.
2. Utilitarianism and the “Brave New World”
Critics have also likened Mill’s utilitarianism to Aldous Huxley’s dystopian “Brave New World.” However, Mill’s emphasis on freedom and justice as integral components of happiness counters this criticism. He believed that true happiness is impossible without freedom and that individuals would not find fulfillment in a society like Plato’s Republic, ruled by supposedly perfect leaders.
Utilitarianism, for Mill, involves a careful calculation of pleasures, aiming to create conditions where everyone can live as they would like, enjoying full freedom and realizing their full potential.
3. Practical Application of Utilitarianism
The practicality of calculating the effects of actions on general happiness has also been questioned. Mill addresses this by suggesting we rely on the accumulated experience of humankind, which provides subordinate principles for action (rule utilitarianism).
Another challenge arises from the potential for unacceptable consequences from strict utilitarian principles. For example, would a sadomasochistic community, where inflicting and experiencing pain brings pleasure to all members, be considered morally right? Or is it morally justifiable to sacrifice one individual for the benefit of a group?
Mill argues that while we should generally follow established rules (rule utilitarianism), these rules are not absolute. In exceptional cases, they can be overridden by utilitarian considerations (act utilitarianism). Unlike deontological ethics, such as Kant’s, Mill’s utilitarianism allows for flexibility in applying moral principles.
4. Further Criticisms of Mill’s Utilitarianism
Despite Mill’s responses, further criticisms remain:
- Human Nature and Historical Progress: Mill’s assumptions about human nature—that properly educated individuals desire general happiness—and the historical progress towards moral development are not empirically verifiable. Not all individuals prioritize general happiness, even with education, and while some individuals may exhibit moral development, this cannot be generalized as a universal rule.
- Qualitative and Quantitative Pleasures: Mill’s distinction between qualitative and quantitative pleasures makes calculating and comparing the moral implications of actions complex and often impractical. While Mill suggests that accumulated moral wisdom (rule utilitarianism) and the possibility of adapting rules in exceptional cases (act utilitarianism) can mitigate undesirable consequences, the individual’s capacity for bias remains a concern.
Ultimately, Mill suggests that individual intelligence and virtue are essential for moral action. However, this reliance on individual judgment raises questions about the practical utility of his principle of general happiness in resolving real-world moral conflicts.