John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
Mill defends the "greatest happiness principle," according to which "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." By happiness, Mill means pleasure and the absence of pain, which he argues are the only things desirable for their own sakes. Many objections have been raised to these views, and Mill addresses a number of them. In response to the complaint that setting pleasure as the highest good makes us no better than swine, Mill argues that pleasures differ not only in quantity, but also in quality; some pleasures are higher than others. Which pleasures are preferable, Mill claims, can be settled by the preferences of competent judges-those who have experienced both pleasures. In response to the objection that it is sometimes admirable to give up one's pleasure for the sake of others, Mill points out that this is compatible with utilitarianism, provided that the result of one's sacrifice is greater happiness for others.
Mill argues that the ultimate sanction of the principle of utility comes not from an external source, but from the conscientious feelings of mankind. As the principle is a claim about the ultimate ends of our actions, Mill maintains that it is incapable of demonstrative proof. Nonetheless, some considerations can be presented in its favor. In particular, Mill argues that claims about ends are claims about what is desirable. Furthermore, the only way of proving that something is desirable is by showing that people actually desire it. Because happiness is the only thing that people desire for its own sake, we should accept that it is the only thing desirable for its own sake. Mill concludes with a discussion of the nature and role of justice within utilitarianism.
-Some have objected that applying utilitarianism would require difficult calculations, and would therefore be impractical. How does Mill respond to this objection? Do you find his response compelling?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
Mill defends the "greatest happiness principle," according to which "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." By happiness, Mill means pleasure and the absence of pain, which he argues are the only things desirable for their own sakes. Many objections have been raised to these views, and Mill addresses a number of them. In response to the complaint that setting pleasure as the highest good makes us no better than swine, Mill argues that pleasures differ not only in quantity, but also in quality; some pleasures are higher than others. Which pleasures are preferable, Mill claims, can be settled by the preferences of competent judges-those who have experienced both pleasures. In response to the objection that it is sometimes admirable to give up one's pleasure for the sake of others, Mill points out that this is compatible with utilitarianism, provided that the result of one's sacrifice is greater happiness for others.
Mill argues that the ultimate sanction of the principle of utility comes not from an external source, but from the conscientious feelings of mankind. As the principle is a claim about the ultimate ends of our actions, Mill maintains that it is incapable of demonstrative proof. Nonetheless, some considerations can be presented in its favor. In particular, Mill argues that claims about ends are claims about what is desirable. Furthermore, the only way of proving that something is desirable is by showing that people actually desire it. Because happiness is the only thing that people desire for its own sake, we should accept that it is the only thing desirable for its own sake. Mill concludes with a discussion of the nature and role of justice within utilitarianism.
-Some have objected that applying utilitarianism would require difficult calculations, and would therefore be impractical. How does Mill respond to this objection? Do you find his response compelling?