John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism Essay

Abstract The paper presents the life of John Stuart Mill through his biography. A glimpse on his exceptional life as a child was also included in his biography. Likewise, his major contributions as a philosopher and economist were also discussed. Since John Stuart Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism, the paper focuses its discussion on Mill and utilitarianism. The views of John Stuart Mill on utilitarianism and how it differs from Bentham’s views were given much attention in the paper. The history of utilitarianism was also presented to show how utilitarianism evolved. The confusions of many people, regarding who the real founder of utilitarianism, was clarified through the history of utilitarianism. Introduction John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), is a British philosopher-economist, who is the son of James Mill. He is one of the best 19th century thinkers. In economics, he was influenced by the theories of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Thomas Robert Malthus, and his Principles of Political Economy is a little more than a restatement of their ideas. He had a great impact on 19th century British thought, not only in philosophy and economics but also in the areas of political science, logic, and ethics. He was a proponent of utilitarianism. He systematized the utilitarian doctrines of his father and Jeremy Bentham in such works as Utilitarianism (1863), basing knowledge upon human experience and emphasizing human reason. In political economy, Mill advocated those policies that he believed most consistent with individual liberty, and he emphasized that liberty could be threatened as much by social as by political tyranny. He is probably most famous for his essay â€Å"On Liberty† (1859). He studied pre-Marxian socialist doctrine, and, although he did not become a socialist, he worked actively for improvement of the conditions of the working people. Utilitarianism is a philosophy which has been around for centuries, and is still active and popular in the modern world. It is important not only in philosophy itself, but in disciplines such as economics, political science, and decision theory. To some people, Utilitarianism seems to be the only ethical philosophy which is obviously correct. To others, it seems to be quite misconceived, even reprehensible. Biography of John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a British philosopher, economist, moral and political theorist, and administrator. He was the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century. His views are of continuing significance, and are generally recognized to be among the deepest and certainly the most effective defenses of empiricism and of a liberal political view of society and culture. The overall aim of his philosophy is to develop a positive view of the universe and the place of humans in it, one which contributes to the progress of human knowledge, individual freedom and human well-being. John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in Pentonville, London. He was the eldest son of James Mill, a Scottish philosopher and historian who had come to London and become a leading figure in the group of philosophical radicals which aimed to further the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. His mother was Harriet Barrow, who seems to have had very little influence upon him. Mill was educated by his father, with the advice and assistance of Jeremy Bentham and Francis Place. He was given an extremely rigorous upbringing, and was deliberately shielded from association with children of his own age other than his siblings. His father, a follower of Bentham and an adherent of associationism, had as his explicit aim to create a genius intellect that would carry on the cause of utilitarianism and its implementation after he and Bentham were dead. John Stuart Mill as a child was exceptional. At the age of three he was taught the Greek alphabet and long lists of Greek words with their English equivalents. By the age of eight he had read Aesop’s Fables, Xenophon’s Anabasis, and the whole of Herodotus, and was acquainted with Lucian, Diogenes Laertius, Isocrates and six dialogues of Plato. He had also read a great deal of history in English and had been taught arithmetic. At fifteen, John Stuart Mill undertook the study of Bentham’s various fragments on the theory of legal evidence. These had an inspiring influence on him, fixing in him his life-long goal of reforming the world in the interest of human well-being. At the age of seventeen, he had completed advanced and thorough courses of study in Greek literature and philosophy, chemistry, botany, psychology, and law. In 1822 Mill began to work as a clerk for his father in the examiner’s office of the India House. In 1823, he co-founded the Westminster Review with Jeremy Bentham as a journal for philosophical radicals. This intensive study however had injurious effects on Mill’s mental health, and state of mind. At the age of twenty-one, he suffered a nervous breakdown. This was caused by the great physical and mental arduousness of his studies which had suppressed any feelings or spirituality he might have developed normally in childhood. Nevertheless, this depression eventually began to dissipate, as he began to find solace in the poetry of William Wordsworth. His capacity for emotion resurfaced, Mill remarking that the â€Å"cloud gradually drew off†. In 1851, Mill married Harriet Taylor after 21 years of an at times intense friendship and love affair. Taylor was a significant influence on Mill’s work and ideas during both friendship and marriage. His relationship with Harriet Taylor reinforced Mill’s advocacy of women’s rights. He died in Avignon, France in 1873, and is buried alongside his wife. John Stuart Mill and the Classical School of Thought Classical economics starts with Adam Smith, as a coherent economic theory, continues with the British economists Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo, and culminates in the synthesis of John Stuart Mill, who as a young man was a follower of David Ricardo. Among the classical economists in the three-quarters of a century, although they have differences of opinion between Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Mill’s Principles of Political Economy (1848), the members of the group still agreed on major principles. All believed in private property, free markets, and, in Mill’s words, that â€Å"only through the principle of competition has political economy any pretension to the character of a science. † They shared Smith’s strong suspicion of government and his ardent confidence in the power of self-interest represented by his famous â€Å"invisible hand,† which reconciled public benefit with individual pursuit of private gain. From Ricardo, classicists derived the notion of diminishing returns, which held that as more labor and capital were applied to land, yields after â€Å"a certain and not very advanced stage in the progress of agriculture steadily diminished. † Through Smith’s emphasis on consumption, rather than on production, the scope of economics was considerably broadened. Smith was optimistic about the chances of improving general standards of life. He called attention to the importance of permitting individuals to follow their self-interest as a means of promoting national prosperity. History of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a fairly old philosophy, and major elements of it are even older. The best known, and most prolific, utilitarian philosophers were Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). In their time, utilitarianism was a significant philosophical movement in Britain, and the utilitarians were some of the leading social reformers of the time. John Stuart Mill, especially, is quite well known today. Many people seem to think, unfortunately, that utilitarianism began with Bentham and ended with Mill. This is quite wrong in two ways. First, Bentham was not the first utilitarian, although he did coin the word â€Å"utilitarianism†. Various pre-Benthamite philosophers were advocating utilitarian positions several decades before Bentham was born. Also, utilitarianism has a lot in common with ancient non-utilitarian philosophers, such as Mo Tzu and Jesus. Both of these people advocated a doctrine of universal love. These doctrines were not precisely stated enough to compare directly with utilitarianism, but they were definitely universalist and egalitarian, and had strong currents of consequentialism, welfarism, and (at least in the case of Mo Tzu) maximization. The second problem with the popular misconception is that there has been a great deal of development in utilitarianism since Mill. Some people are aware, for example, of the later developments of Preference Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Mill is still usually regarded as the main resource on Utilitarianism, though. Part of the problem is that he wrote about it comprehensively, and there have been few good comprehensive books about utilitarianism since then. Modern utilitarianism is in many ways far more sophisticated than that of Mill. Most importantly, it has become connected with many developments in areas such as economics, political science, and decision theory. Utilitarianism has always enjoyed an essentially unique position as the only philosophy which applied to all areas of human endeavor in a reasonably straightforward endeavor, and committed to specific positions on how conflict between various interests should be resolved. In Mill’s time, utilitarianism was strongly linked to economics, although the two disciplines subsequently diverged. Today, Preference Utilitarianism as a theory underlies many ideas in the sciences, and has been formalized to a degree that Mill never dreamed of. The idea of utility maximization even has applications entirely outside of philosophy, such as its use in artificial intelligence to represent how a computer could make trade-offs between different goals. Utilitarianism today exists both as a powerful kind of formal reasoning, and as the philosophy which says that such reasoning should define the moral ideal in human affairs. Utilitarianism can even be formally derived from a set of four reasonable seeming axioms, something that no other major philosophy can claim. The modern state of utilitarianism in relation to other philosophies is actually quite unusual. Most philosophies exist in theoretical isolation, based on ideas which have little in common with ideas in other disciplines. Other disciplines, in turn, don’t have much formal contact with them. Most major philosophies have a significant presence in politics and social issues, with people explicitly referring to issues such as rights and equality when debating how society should be organized. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, exists mostly in the background of popular discourse. People who claim to follow other philosophies often make utilitarian arguments when it suits them, and utilitarian arguments are often used by people who wouldn’t claim to follow any specific philosophy at all. Many philosophers make sure to explicitly place their ideas in opposition to utilitarianism, as if it were always lurking in the background ready to pounce on the unsuspecting theory. In part, this may be because utilitarianism is a sort of philosophical hydra, growing a new position for each one that is dismissed. While specific utilitarian ideas are vulnerable to attack, the underlying sentiments have proven amazingly resilient and have evolved to remain entirely current. Throughout the twentieth century, many philosophers confidently predicted that utilitarianism had been devastated, and would soon fall out of favor – only to be disproved when it remained as popular as ever. Utilitarian perspectives have also been quietly adopted in domains ranging from economics, political science, and decision theory to cognitive science and artificial intelligence. This has given modern utilitarianism a powerful formulation like no other, and a strong applied tradition. The old questions of how to measure utility, and how to maximize it most effectively in practice, have been extensively researched outside of philosophy. The result of this is that while other philosophies often talk in general terms of how they should be applied, and have problems in resolving conflicts between various principles, utilitarianism is at the cutting edge of rigorously applicable principles. Which is still, it should be mentioned, far from perfect. John Stuart Mill on Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is the most influential moral philosophy in the last two centuries. Jeremy Bentham is the acknowledged founder of utilitarianism. He admitted however that he took over the principle of utility from David Hume. By stating categorically that there is an ultimate good – a summum bonum, John Stuart Mill, the most famous utilitarian, laid the foundation of his moral philosophy. According to Mill, all moral actions should be aimed at attaining this good. Mill insists that this good is happiness. According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, †¦ the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable – whether we are considering our own good or that of other people – is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality†¦ ( Boyce, p. 36) Mill states his teological position by insisting that the rightness of an action is determined by the actual consequences. It cannot be done by simply examining the nature of the act alone. The real value of our actions depends on whether it promotes the good or not. The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals Utility or Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. Wrong, as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. (Boyce, p. 36) Mill differs radically from Bentham on two important points. He is vehemently against the purely quantitative treatment of the principle of utility. According to Mill, we have to admit that some pleasures are intrinsically superior to others. He disdainfully said: It is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides. (Solomon, p. 310 ) To confirm his point, Mill cites Epicurus (341-270 B. C. ) who also espoused the view that while the good life is the life of pleasure, he does not mean only bodily and sensual pleasure alone. These are higher forms like intellectual and spiritual pleasure. According to both philosophers some pleasures are intrinsically superior to others. When there are some issues that arise about the criterion for judging the quality of pleasure. Mill argues that: If I am asked what I mean by difference of quality of pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures if there is be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of a feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their name is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison of small account. (Solomon, pp. 297-298). The example given by Mill is Socrates who is acquainted with both bodily pleasure and intellectual pleasure. If you ask which pleasure is more desirable, obviously, according to Mill, Socrates will choose intellectual pleasure. So the criterion for judging which pleasure is better than another must be made by a judge who has experienced both kinds of pleasures. Indeed, Mill is calling for an inter-subjective consensus of people who experienced both types of pleasure. The introduction of quality of pleasure added undue complication to Bentham’s quantitative calculus. The higher pleasure consists of the more intellectual, artistic and even spiritual, like reading poetry, speculating about the nature or the cosmos, enjoying of music and the visual arts etc. as opposed to the more sensual and physical, like eating good food, indulging in sex and other physical stimulation. It must be mentioned though, that Mill is not excluding the lower pleasure from consideration. But obviously, he personally prefers the higher pleasures. Remember that it is the pig that provides the model for lower pleasure; in contrast, it is Socrates who exemplifies the quest for higher pleasures. Mill’s proof on the soundness of the principle of utility: The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible is that people actually hear it; and so the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence is it possible to produce that anything is desirable that people do actually desire it†¦ no reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desire his own happiness. (Solomon, p. 319 ). This proof has been the subject of debate among utlilitarian scholars. According to Solomon, the most generous interpretation of Mill’s proof are the following: one’s own happiness or pleasure is the only thing desired by each person; the general happiness or the happiness of all is the only thing desired for itself by all; the only test of something being desirable is its being desired; the general happiness is the only thing desired in itself; and lastly, the only test of the rightness or wrongness of actions is their tendency to promote the general happiness (the greatest happiness for the greatest number). Summary and Conclusion John Stuart Mill, being a philosopher and an economist had a great impact in the 19th century british thought not only in the field of philosophy and economics but also in other areas of political science, logic, and ethics. His exceptional childhood because of his father’s rigorous training had injurious effects on his mental health, and state of mind. Nevertheless, his father was able to create a genius in him that would carry on the cause of utilitarianism and its implementation after the death of his father and Bentham. One of the important works of John Stuart Mill was Utilitarianism, which argues for the philosophy of Utilitarianism. This philosophy was primarily formed by Jeremy Bentham, but Mill’s father James Mill was also a proponent. Utilitarianism holds that actions are good in proportion to the amount of happiness produced and number of people happiness is produced in. Mill’s main innovation to Utilitarianism is the idea of a hierarchy of pleasures. Bentham had treated all forms of happiness as equal, whereas Mill argued that intellectual and moral pleasures and developments were superior to more physical forms of pleasure. His views are of continuing significance, and are recognized to be among the deepest and certainly the most effective defenses of empiricism and of a liberal political view of society and culture. The overall aim of his philosophy is to develop a positive view of the universe and the place of humans in it, one which contributes to the progress of human knowledge, individual freedom and human well-being. His views are not entirely original, having their roots in the British empiricism of John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume, and in the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham. But he gave them a new depth, and his formulations were sufficiently articulate to gain for them a continuing influence among a broad public. References: ACUNA, A. E. 2001. Philosophical Analysis. 5th Edition. U. P. Department of Philosophy. Diliman, Quezon City. Autobiography by John Stuart Mill. http://www. utilitarianism. com/jsmill. htm. BOYCE, W. D. 1978. Moral Reasoning. University of Nebraska Press. London. MONTGOMERIE, I. 2000. A Utilitarian FAQ. http://www. ianmontgomerie. com /manifesto/utilitarian. SOLOMON, R. C. Morality and the Good Life. 1984. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York. Webster’s Family Encyclopedia. 1999. Vol. 6. Archer Worldwide Inc. Great Neck, New York, U. S. A.