Utilitarianism and Other Essays - John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham > Reviews (2)

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory formulated by Jeremy Bentham and expanded by J.S. Mill. This book contains four essays of Mil..

The Book
========

The edition of the book I have is this:
On Liberty and Other Essays (Oxford World's Classics) edited by John Gray. It is quite a long book of 628 pages so it takes a little while to get through it.

This book contents a collection of Mill's finest works.
It contains these essays:

• Utilitarianism
• On Liberty
• Considerations on Representative Government
• The Subjection of Women

I have not actually read The Subjection of Women so I can not comment on it. I will write a little synopsis on On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government as I know these books a bit but Utilitarianism I know in quite a lot of detail so there will be a more detailed commentary on this essay and some criticism of his ideas.

The thing about studying for something is that at times I might be required to read a specific essay but not necessarily the whole book and the same with specific chapters.

On Liberty
========

For Mill, On Liberty was about "the importance, to man and society, of a large variety in types of character, and of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions."
Mill writes about the importance of individuality. He sees that people should not be forced to act in a particular way because society wants them to behave in some manner. People should be free from both legal coercion or social pressure. The only time that the law should prohibt people is when they are committing acts that harm other people. This is to protect society and for the good of all. This certainly shows the Utilitarian in Mill.
Mill sees liberty as important as it allows society to progress and prevents social stagnation. Mill justifies all this through Utilitarianism. Liberty is important for the minority opinion to be heard as there are times when it is correct. Not only that, an incorrect minority opinion gives people the opportunity to reflect on their own thinking. For example, if everyone saw racism as wrong, no one would ever discuss the ways in which it would harm people through discussion as that sort of topic might never come up in the first place. It puts it on the agenda. In more positive light, social outsiders push back societal boundaries and this is clear with women's rights.

Mill, in his first chapter, overviews the meaning of liberty. He states why we should respect liberty so not to harm other people. For the next 2 chapters, he states why liberty of action and opinion are valuable to society. In the 4th chapter, Mill discusses the amount of autonomy a person should have. The final chapter examines examples of liberty in practice and uses this to justify his theories.

Mill can be criticsed for placing a large amount on the importance of individuality. However, he does defend that being a nonconformist can be beneficial for society.

Considerations on Representative Government ===============================

This will be quite brief as I do not recall every chapter of the book.

Mill tries to justify a form of democracy through representative government.
Here Mill thought it would be best for society if the intellectual people represented the mass population. He was very wary of bringing power to the masses because people are selfish and the people without any education were probably not fit to be making political decisions that could effect the whole country.
Using representation, rather than direct democracy, would put the experts at the top where they would be effective in making decisions on behalf of the people.
Mill viewed that the more educated could be able to think not only about their own situations but would make decisions that would be in the interest of everyone. Mill assumed that the more educated one is, the less selfish they would be. Mill even went as far as to suggest that people with degrees should be entitled to more votes than people without! However, it was not entirely an elitist viewpoint as he was pro-educaton for all. Through education people should become more informed about their society and once they have reached a high enough level of enlightenment, then they would be worthy of voting. Perhaps Mill is right - a better society is when people know how it functions and what happens in it.

He was also pro-open voting. This would make people feel more accountable for their chosen vote. This would also ensure a higher quality of voting whereby people might feel less relucant to make a random "silly vote" for a single issue joke party.

Utilitarianism
===========

Mill writes five chapters to agrue the misconceptions of Utilitarianism. He introduces the topic and defines utility. He presents the misunderstandings of the theory. In the third chapter he illustrates the benefits of using Utilitarianiam. In chapter 4, Mill attempts to show that using Utilitarianism is a valid method of ethics. Mill finally links justice and utility together to show that happiness is what justice is based upon.

Introduction of theories
==================

This teleological theory looks to the consequences of actions. It is opposed to Kant's theories that uses absolute rules such as "do not kill" as this is inflexible. What is right is to promote the general good (good for everyone) from our actions and rules. If we must have rules, they are decided upon by working out which of them produces, or maybe expected to produce the greatest balance of good over evil. The principle of utility is the sole alternate of right, wrong and obligation. Moral ends are to be sort out in all we do to establish the greatest possible balance of good over evil. In most cases the end justifies the means therefore it means that how we achieve something is not important as long as the outcome is good.

Hedonic Calculus
==============

Jeremy Bentham said that there must be some measurement of good and bad as these need to be defined. Early in the 19th century he drew up his Hedonic Calculus (the balance between pain and pleasure) to measure pleasure and pain. It has seven dimensions:

* Intensity - how deep it the pleasure or pain
* Duration - how long will the pleasure or pain last?

* Certainly - is the pleasure or pain certain or uncertain?
* Propinquity - is the pleasure/pain near or far away?
* Fecundity - is it going to be followed up by sensations of the same kind?
* Purity - is it pure/pleasure or is it going to be tinted by the opposites? (Think about Sadism!)
* Extent - the number of persons it extends to?

It appears from the calculus that Bentham's concerns was about the quantity of pleasure as opposed to the quality of pleasure.

The Quality of Pleasure
==================

John Stuart Mill claimed there was a fault in the Hedonic Calculus of Bentham because it was concerned with the quantity rather than the quality of pleasure.
For example if guards are happily torturing a prisoner, the quantity of their pleasure may be massive compared with the prisoner's pain but is there any quality in their pleasure? In a civilised society we need to think beyond only the quantity.

Slavery
----------
The majority benefit in a household from having a few slaves and the happiness of the slave owners out weighs the suffering of the slaves but is there any quality in the slave owner's happiness? To counterbalance these situations, Mill set about replacing quantity with quality. He still claimed, like Bentham, that pleasure is the sole intrinsic good, but in addition he claims that there are higher pleasures of the mind and lower pleasures of the body. He saw by introducing quality, the problems caused by slavery and torture are eliminated because the pain of the prisoners and the slaves outweighs the pleasures.

Mill:
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

Act Utilitarianism (AU)
=================

Act Utilitarianism is used so that you sort out what is right or obligatory. It is done by trying to see which of the actions open to you will or is likely to produce the greatest balance of good over evil in the universe. It is looking at the consquences of the actions on the whole world if I do something.
The question is asked:
What effect will my doing this act in this situation have on the general balance of good over evil?
The question that Act Utilitarians do not ask is what affect will everyone doing this act in this kind of situation have on the general balance of good over evil. AU may accept that generally telling the truth is useful but every time they have a choice, they have to ask themselves, in this case is it for the general good? Act Utilitarians must decided wherever the affects of their action will influence others because the influence you have on others is an affect of your action, orbit an indirect affect, e.g. adultery, violence in the home, etc.

Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism
----------------------------------------​--
A particular act may be made - right or wrong - by facts about it rather than the amount of good or evil it produces. For many philosphers like Kant, an act can be good in itself. It maybe wrong to do this act because it involves breaking a promise or telling a lie.

* Should a poor man steal from a rich man to feed his family? If every poor man stole the rich man's things, then it would be unfair.
* Should society punish the innocent person, either to be held up as an example or to prevent riot or panic?
* Should a woman not keep her promise to pay a boy who has done work for her because she has a better use of the money?
* A businessman owes money to a person who is wealthy. He has the money but decides to send it to the third world, as he will cause more pleasure to help the third world than to make the payment.

General Utilitarianism (GU)
=====================

They ask, "What would happen to the general balance of good over evil if everyone were to do this action?"
Taking the instance of the poor man stealing from the rich man to feed his family, the GU would have to ask what would happen if all the poor and needy stole from the rich and the answer they would give would be that it is wrong. That would be unfair on the rich. This brings into play the principle of universability. However, the poor man might argue that if no one knew he is doing it and they do not copy his actions, then he is still producing the greatest happiness for his family by stealing. That is why the GU has had to add universability to the AU theories.

Criticisms of General Utilitarianism
----------------------------------------​---------
The poor man might argue that if all poor men stole to feed their families then they would all be better off. The majority would be happier than the minority (the rich). At this point the GU has no answer. It can not show his actions to be wrong. One has to coincide that his action is right or reject utilitarianism completely.

Rule Utilitarianism (RU)
===================

This is a reflection of Mill on Bentham's original idea.
It highlights the centrality of rules in morality. In general, we are to appeal to a rule like truth telling, rather than by asking what particular action will have the best consequences in situation. (AU) But we must always consider wherever our rules promote the greatest good. Not what action has the greatest utility but which rule. The principle of utility is to determine the rule, not the action. The rules must be selected, maintained, revised and replaced on the basis of utility and nothing else. (How useful they are at the time in question). If they are not useful they must be changed.
It is for the greatest good if we do not lie. This means, for the RU; it may be right to obey a rule like telling the truth simply because it is so useful to have that rule. When, in that particular case, telling the truth does not lead to the best consequences.

Bishop Berkeley is a critic of AU and GU. He says we do not have the time or we are ignorant of the facts, or we are bias or prejudice to sort out each action as it arises as if an AU would so we must have some rules. RU theories can be put in practice in society today.

I will take now a particular moral issue and examine it.

Abortion
-----------
AU - I want to abort my baby because that is the kindest action for all.

It is my decision alone. Authority is the Hedonic Calculus. More pleasure/less pain for the majority.
GU - We all want to abort our babies and all have the right to. This will promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
RU - (Warnock Report) - There must be some rules. In some circumstances abortion is forbidden. There must be medical advise.

Practical Objections to Utilitarianism
=============================

Can you measure pleasure? Is it possible to measure the intensity of pleasure against the time it lasts? Or a long lasting pleasure against a shorter pleasure?

Should we pursue economic growth and luxury at the expense of all generations to come and leave a worn out world? We can eat, drink and be merry pursuing happiness and have the world in a worse state than we found it. Is this a moral position? Some critics think that the welfare state of the 20th century was born out of utilitarian principles and has encouraged dependence and has stopped initiative.
One person's happiness is another person's misery. Practicality to make laws for majority happiness when human interest and passions are so varied is difficult.

Does the general happiness for all count as greater happiness of the few? Here we are back to the example of the innocent man being sacrificed to prevent a riot. The majority are generally happier because there is no riot. What about the happiness of the innocent man's family? The individual in this case. Justice has not been done.

As pleasure and pain are the only considerations of the Hedonic Calculus, and not who has or what has pleasure or pain, you could extend the argument to the animal kingdom. Pleasure is pleasure and pain is pain. Animal pain is still pain. It could be argued that the utilitarian should cause no animal pain. Some critics claim this is mere sentimentality.

Utilitarianism is a reductive, minimalistic ethic. It reduces ethics to the single dimension of happiness. The question the utilitarian asks will any great harm result from this action and not the question of what can be done to further the happiness and pleasure of others. Certainly a religious criticism would be that life is not merely about seeking pleasure.

Bentham would have wished to see his theories universalised, and was himself quite selfless in some of his actions. There are many who would use the pursuit of happiness as an excuse for their selfish behaviour. Generally humans are not selfless in their approach to life. Most people will look after their family but not attempt to maximise the happiness of the whole of mankind.

Theoretical Objections to Utilitarianism
===============================

Mill never claimed happiness could be proved to be good. He merely observed it was what most people desire and consequently ought to be the outcome of our moral actions.

Can the end ever be made the soul justification of the moral action? History is full of accounts of dreadful crimes committed claiming that the end justifies the mean, e.g. Hitler killing the Jews, the Crusades - Christianity going wrong - making people Christians.

There is little consideration of any real sense of justice, if you follow the end justifying the means. Justice for every man is important. The innocent must be respected even if the well-being of the majority suffers, e.g. Slavery - the masters' benefit but the minority are sacrificed.

Utilitarianism almost rejects the motive behind the action as unimportant. Most other philosophies requires you to look at your motives. The Christian motive would be love; the Kantian is good will. Christians are warned that the intention is important. They must not be hypocrites seeking to praise or persona; reward. As long as the consequences are good, anything goes for the utilitarian.

Is there a place in morality for duty for duty's sake; not because of a consequence that is produced. Sometimes we see it as our duty or obligation to do something and not to think about the consequences for us, or anyone else.

Summary of Mill
=============

Utilitarianism fails to protect individual rights as the majority are seen as mopre important than thwe minority. This is dangerous because it justifies human rights abuse.

Mill assumes that people naturally want to be happy and makes judgements about the nature of humanity. Mill sees that people only desiire happiness.

Mill sees that justice exists because they support rights that are required for human happiness.

There is no standard in what is happiness as it can not be quantified scientifically.

Mill tries to overcome these problems but not entirely satifactorily.

Conclusion of the theory
===================

Utilitarianism can not be a universal ethic as people are diverse and not all seek happiness. Happiness is not enough and is a subjective emotion. Mill's attempt at making this scientific failed because emotions are not quantifiable.

However, Mill and Bentham did show that in some cases, Utility can be useful., e.g. in budget spending and law. Utility remains a strong ethic were pragmatism is vital but is subject to mass exploitation.

Difficulty
=======

The book is not aimed at children and yound adults and can be hard to read if you are not familar with the style of language or the concepts mentioned. I am doing a course in Political Theory so I have been equiped with some knowledge of the previous thinkers that overshadow Mill. It might be worth having a look at the other theories in summary before diving in straight to the orginal text.
I came across this book first at A Level but now am studying it through my degree in Politics. I would suggest it to be read by people are willing to be stretched academically and through the langauge. In interest in philosophy and politcal theory is very useful.

Availability
========

Most libraries will have a copy in the country/city evne if its not in that particular branch I would guess. It is a set text for my degree and I know its easily available from online retailers and Waterstones.

Price
====

Its quite an inexpensive copy to get. It is only merely £3.99. It is certainly worth getting at this price even if you do not actually read all the essays like me..
I probably would read the whole book but I have so much reading to do for my degree, I am not about to use any free time on this right now.