Mills Salient Propositions and Commentary

 
Mill and Utilitarianism
Mills Salient Propositions and Commentary
1. Actions are morally right if they tend to promote happiness
2. Actions are morally wrong if they tend to promote the reverse of happiness (unhappiness, evil)
Consequentialism: Another way to state these principles is to say that only the consequences of ones actions are morally important; intentions or the past are morally irrelevant.
e.g. If I try to save a child from a burning building but fail, then my action was morally wrong since it did not promote happiness
e.g. If I promise to take my niece to the movies, but instead go out with my friends drinking, then this might be morally right if my action has promoted more happiness than it would have had I taken my niece to the movies.
Objections to Consequentialism
1. Rights
2. Justice
3. Promises
3. The definition of happiness is pleasure or the absence of pain
4. The definition of unhappiness is pain or privation of pleasure
Happiness is simply defined as pleasure and unhappiness as pain. Notice that Mill has not defined pleasure yet so we do not know if its a feeling or some sort of psychological state
5. Pleasure and the freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends
Nothing else in life is worth pursuing except pleasure or the absence of pain. If you pursue honor, knowledge, wealth, or anything else you are wasting your time, unless these are means for you to achieve pleasure.
6. All desirable things are either intrinsically desirable (for their own sake) or extrinsically desirable (for the sake of something else)
7. Pleasures are distinguishable not only by quantity but also by quality (some pleasures are qualitatively superior to other pleasures)
This is Mills attempt to answer the following objection: Utilitarianism is not a plausible theory of morality or life since there is obviously more to life than pursuing pleasure. No moral theory should be supported which is consistent with us eating, drinking, having sex, etc. But this is what this theory does since all of those activities bring us pleasure. But non-human animals also engage in these things, so the theory is the same theory that is applicable, lets say, a swine or a dog.
8. Human beings have more elevated faculties than animals
This is Mills attempt to argue that since human beings are capable of cognitive pleasures like reading, solving problems, listening to music, etc., then such higherpleasures are supposed to be pursued instead of low animalistic pleasures.
9. The fulfillment of more elevated faculties is more pleasurable than the fulfillment of lower faculties
This is one of the most controversial claim by Mill. Mill is, in essence, claiming that cognitive pleasures are always more satisfying than bodily pleasures.
e.g. If one compares having, let us say, sex or good food to solving problems or reading, then the last two are always to be preferred.
10. Any pleasure is qualitatively superior to another pleasure if, those who are competently acquainted with both, always prefer one over the other.
Here Mill is claiming that those who do prefer, let us say, sex to reading, do only so because they are not sufficiently trained in reading, or lack the time for it, of have not been taught to appreciate it.
11. Few human beings would consent to be changed to an animal even if promised more bodily pleasure. The same goes for intelligent human being changed to a fool, educated human to an ignoramus, a morally good person to a selfish and base one.
12. Humans are more capable of intense suffering than animals