Criticisms Of Utilitarianism, By John Stuart Mill

Utilitarianism states that “an act is only right if it causes the greatest happiness in the greatest number.” In his essay Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill added a qualitative component to this mathematically driven theory. Mill created a distinction between higher, intellectual pleasures and lower, bodily pleasures. Mill stated that some pleasures are of a higher quality, and therefore are worth more. Additionally he stated that no quantity of a lower pleasure could achieve the same quality as a higher one. Finally, Mill proposed that the “competent judge” of pleasure is someone who has experienced both pleasures and would always prefer one over the other (chapter 2, paragraph 5). In this paper, I will explain advantages and my criticisms
He argues that while it may be of a greater pleasure to learn an entire language, the person who chooses that will not be more content than the person who chose to consume the world’s best deep dish pizza- in fact they may be less content or satisfied. Mill states, “A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and is certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence (chapter 2, paragraph 6).” For example, if you learned an entire new language and spoke with people of another country, you may learn of horrible things happening like rape, war, and starvation. Naturally this would lead to a lower level of contentment. On the other hand, if you had chosen to eat the pizza, you will simply feel full and content. However, in Utilitarianism the goal is “the greatest happiness in the greatest number,” which means you must put society above yourself and focus on pleasure rather than contentment. When we look at the two options again, it seems obvious that learning an entire new language will benefit far more people than yourself, for example this increased communication can lead to a more bolstering economy, improved
The premises do lead directly to the conclusion, that people should always choose the higher pleasures over the lower pleasures, but the premises are flawed themselves. The very “pleasures” that allow us to survive, like eating and drinking, or “pleasures” that allow society to continue, such as sex and reproduction, would be classified as lower pleasures. If we are to follow Mill’s conclusion and always choose the pleasure of the higher quality, the situation could become deadly quickly. For example, if I was to choose to continue reading fine literature (the higher quality pleasure) instead of taking a break to eat (the lower quality pleasure), starvation would be in my near future. As Mill declared, I can judge that reading the fine poetry is a higher quality pleasure because I have received both pleasures prior in my life, as have many others, and we have collectively determined it to be of a higher quality (page 11, paragraph 2). My critique of Mill’s argument surrounds premises three, four, and five. There exists a hierarchy of needs, and a human can’t even experience a higher level of pleasure unless the very biological needs like food, water, and shelter, have been satisfied