Mill Essay

Mills interpretation of utility is to promote overall happiness. According to Mill, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “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” (Mill 7). Mills explains every situation that promotes overall utility or happiness. I believe Mills view of a happy life and its relation to morality is both correct.     

As referenced in the introduction, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “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” (Mill 7). Mill says that the foundation of morals for utility is grounded in the greatest happiness. The principle of utility is grounded in the theory for the promotion of pleasure as quoted by Mill, “But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded namely, that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.” (Mill 7).  In essence utility is the promotion of pleasure and freedom from pain. In terms of rights a pleasure would be freedom to feel secure and a pain would be a person stealing his or her private property.

                A happy life according to Mill is having pleasure with the absence of unhappiness and pain. Mill points out there are two distinct elements the lower pleasures and the higher pleasures. The lower pleasures are material goods, alcohol, watching TV, eating etc. The higher pleasures however, consist of higher intellectual pleasures for instance, a philosophy teacher learning more about Mills complicated and painful text and actually understanding them or working for a huge project like the peace core or the Red Cross. Mills remarks that, “A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of 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” (Mill 9). Mill basically says that a person ought to be more educated so he can in essence be happier with intellectual pleasure than just be content with a hoard of lower pleasures. Mills also points out that the more educated a person is the more likely to experience higher and more fulfilling pleasure than a non-educated person would.

Mill points out an intriguing example of an obstacle that a person might go through in achieving happiness that is the cultivation of one’s mind. As Mill points out, “A cultivated mind- I do not mean that of a philosopher, but any mind to which the fountains of knowledge have been opened, and which has been taught, in any tolerable degree, to exercise its faculties-finds sources of inexhaustible interest in all that surrounds it: in the objects of nature, the achievements of art, the imaginations of poetry, the incidents of history etc…it is possible, indeed, to become indifferent to all this, and that too without having exhausted a thousandth part of it, but only when one has had from the beginning no moral or human interest in these things and has sought in them only the gratification of curiosity” (Mill 14). In my opinion this points out that if someone were well educated, studied things, had appreciation and knowledge of many things, that this person would be more gratified as opposed to a person who sat and watched South Park everyday and ate philly cheesesteaks. The obstacles that a person might deal with to achieve happiness out of a context that is theorized is if the person was under some authoritarian rule. Under authoritarian rule the principle of Utility would not really apply since the ruler is not making a rule or conduct to the overall happiness of people. Instead the citizens are subjected to the rulers taste and selfish acts. Corrupted authoritarian or despotism rule drive many of its citizens into poverty, poor health, hunger, disease and even not caring for one another. This view of the obstacle to happiness can be referenced from Mill quote which says, “The present wretched education and wretched social arrangements are the only real hindrance to its being attainable by almost all (Mill 13)”. Mill explains other obstacles of happiness as not caring for other people and poverty.

Mill points in the standard of moral rightness, “considered as the directive rule of human conduct… But it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether” (Mill 11). What Mill’s means by this is one individual does not want to be murdered or have been robbed which would promote unhappiness and pain. The rule of conduct is a form of rules set by a majority rule of individuals that want to promote their own well being so everyone benefits from the rule for instance, murdering without a penalty. This situation promotes overall utility or happiness that Mill’s theory holds with the individualistic intellect that every human being carries.

Mill might be considered a conservative because of the following quote, “I have dwelt on this point as being a necessary part of a perfectly just conception of utility or happiness considered as the directive rule of human conduct (Mill 11)”. Here it seems that Mill is saying that directive rule is a necessity to utility or happiness. Mill’s acceptance of the rule of human conduct makes him look conservative. Where Mill goes radical again is when he basically says in a quoted passage, ”But it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether (Mill 11)”. Mills acceptance is only grounded on the condition that the rule of human conduct promotes overall happiness to the majority.

The conservatism helps Mill to defend that utility is not demanding by bringing in the code of human conduct or the set of rules. Mill points out that there is a level of morality principle of utility and secondary rules of conduct which involve tradition and custom. Mill brings up there is Public Utility which is the overall welfare for all concern for instance, laws. There is also private utility which deals with the well being of those closest to us.  Everyone is affected by public utility because of the overall weight it holds. If there were no outlaw on robbery then people would get their property stolen and there would not be a great deal of happiness. The private utility is a duty to look out for themselves and people who they are closest to, for instance, lending a helping hand to a friend in need.

The most powerful objection that I can think of is the hospital administrator case where there is a homeless person who has organs that would save the five noble peace prize scientists who find cures for diseases. The principle of utility seems to respond that in the overall well being and happiness of others taking the organs of a homeless person would benefit the five noble peace prize scientists. The main question is would you take his organs even if the homeless person did not consent to it? Would it be morally right? Mill I believe would say that getting consent is a right that everyone has in a utilitarian point of view but, to go ahead with the procedure would violate his or her rights and if it caught wind of the society then no one would trust the medical institutions. If individuals don’t believe in the medical institution they will not go to the hospital for treatment and if individuals don’t go to the hospital for treatment many people will be sick, diseased, and die. There would be no happiness with the element of pain and suffering of all which is not the principle of utility.