Mill s argument for the principle of utility and the doctine of higher and lower pleasures

Mill’s defense of the principle of utility:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Seeing something proves that it is visible
Hence, desiring something proves that it is desireable.
The only thing that each person ultimately desires is his or her own happiness.
Hence, the only thing that is ultimately desirable is for a person is his or her own happiness. 5. Hence, each person should perform those actions that promote the greatest happiness.

Ask yourself:
(a) Visibility is a descriptive concept. Is something’s being desirable also a descriptive concept?
(b) What does premise three state, and is it true?
(c) Does premise four follow from three?
(d) Does five follow from four?
Mill’s Doctrine of Higher and Lower Pleasures:
The notion that the ultimate end of human existence is the enjoyment of pleasure and the avoidance of pain strikes many as ignoble, something porcine rather than Socratic. Hoping to counter this perception, Mill tries to show that not all pleasures are equal, that some are intrinsically superior to others and ought to be preferred. What Mill wants to show is that the higher pleasures of intellect, imagination, and emotion are superior in their intrinsic nature and not merely in their circumstantial advantages. In other words, what Mill aims to prove is that the higher pleasures are better, and so ought to be pursued for their own sake and not merely because they are advantageous to us.
Mill’s argument is essentially as follows:
1. Let A and B be two types of pleasure.
2. Those with experience of both types prefer A over B.
Therefore
3. A-pleasures are preferable to B-pleasures.
Therefore
4. A-pleasures are intrinsically better than B-pleasures.
This argument is invalid, as has been noted on many occasions. Although (3) follows from (1) and (2), given that ‘preferable’ simply means able to be preferred, (4) does not follow from (3).
For what is able to be preferred need not be worthy of preference, i.e., better. Such words as
‘desirable,’ ‘preferable,’ ‘choosable,’ ‘electable,’ ‘delectable,’‘nubile’ are systematically ambiguous. They invite the illicit slide from the descriptive to the prescriptive/proscriptive. Take
‘nubile.’ Distracting connotations aside, it means marriageable. But that can mean either able to be married, or worthy of being married.