Mill’s Response to Utilitarianism

According to Mill: The Doctrine of Pleasure and Higher Pleasures

According to Mill, the doctrine of pleasure is “just fit for swine.” It was argued that pleasure is neither the only good nor the highest good in this situation. It was suggested that other issues deserve more attention because they cause people to worry so much. According to Mill, a distinction between lower and greater pleasures needed to be made. There are some activities that can be deemed superior to others on an instrumental basis (BLTC n.p.). It is evident from the argument that he intended to dispel the myths surrounding the utilitarianism hypothesis that had been going around.

Mill’s Response to Utilitarianism and the Meaning of Life

Mill’s response to utilitarianism has marked a departure from the “Principle of Great Happiness,” in which actions are considered as being right if they promote happiness and wrong if the consequences were hindering happiness (Layard, 2010). Mill opposed the idea of increasing pleasure and avoiding pain as the key motivators for behaviors and actions. According to the scholar, it is wrong to reduce the meaning of life to refer to pleasure which was deemed as being superior and animalistic in nature. Consequently, he argued that when human beings are aware of the existence of higher forms, it becomes a necessity to have them fully exploited. Happiness thus shifts to refer to the exercise of the higher faculties. Not all actions should be considered as a base for pleasures because there are others of greater value. Whenever people make moral judgments in regard to the actions at hand, utilitarianism should therefore not just consider the quantity of pleasure, but also its qualitative aspects.

Mill’s Distinction Between Lower and Higher Pleasures

Mill saw a need to draw a line between the lower and the higher forms of pleasure. He considered the latter as being of higher quality and the best given a chance to choose from different options. Besides, higher pleasure cannot, at any given time, be traded with other greater forms. Whenever human beings are given a chance to choose from a variety of pleasures, they will always go for the option that is the most appealing to their higher faculties. It is for the reason mentioned that a rational being cannot opt to become an animal, ignorant, or a rebel, all with negative consequences. The constant use of higher faculties can result in more suffering in life, but it cannot result in the choice of lower existence. Mill’s distinction of the higher and the lower pleasures was also a key in the correction of simple hedonistic views that he regarded as insufficient. From an intuitive point of view, it seemed like the higher types are not of great importance and thus it is paramount to draw the line between the two forms.

Objections to the Theory of Utilitarianism and Mill’s Response

The idea of coming up with the lower and the higher categories has the objection to the theory of utilitarianism. When it comes to privileging pleasure, hedonists hold the belief that the life of a human being is not of greater worth compared to that of pigs. It was the idea behind the doctrine of “worthy only of swine.”(BLTC n.p.). Mill did not privilege pleasure, but instead argued that just like the pigs; our behaviors are determined by the assessment of the pain and pleasure. An overall emphasis on this assessment can, however, be detrimental because it can reinforce behaviors such as lust and gluttony. The separation of the two types of pleasures distanced Mill from the earlier accounts and could give good responses to the criticism that would be leveled against his views on what utilitarianism should be perceived like. Remedying our problems and living good lives is seen as something achievable according to Mill, something that revealed that the criticism is not only anchored on empiricism but also on ideological views. It is one of the major reasons why the unification of the personal and the greater happiness was considered as being attainable.

The Distinction Between Happiness and Contentment

Happiness should further not be confused with contentment. Those individuals who often employ the high faculties tend to be less content. The phenomenon stems from the fact that they have a deeper understanding of what constitutes of the limitations in the world. It should, however, be noted that such people have a higher character in regard to the common human characteristics. Mill’s argument that it is better to be an unhappy human being than a satisfied pig has the roots in the concepts of the various pleasure types. Pleasure qualities can only be judged by the ones who have experienced the lower and the higher forms.

Weaknesses and Criticisms of Mill’s Ideas

From Mill’s proposal, a number of arguments can be raised against the idea that he put forth. Mill fails to explain why intellectuals go for higher pleasures while the physical pursuits are more geared towards the lower forms. The dichotomies of the higher and lower forms appear to be simplistic. Even if it is possible to get a good grasp of the two distinct forms, there are some issues that will remain problematic. First, it is unclear how human beings can categorize the experiences they go through in fitting between the two types. Besides, from a scholastic point of view, the distinctions raise questions of whether they are in line with avowed hedonism. It is as a result of the evident contradiction after an in-depth analysis of the arguments put forth.

Conclusion

Mill does not draw a clear distinction between the higher and the lower pleasures and can thus be considered as a hedonist. As a critique, Mill should have distanced himself from hedonistic central views that life is characterized and driven by happiness. The school of thought also emphasized that there is the need to uphold actions that promote happiness through triggering pleasurable experiences. An objection can be made from his argument because experiences like reading tend to be better than drinking based on intrinsic motivations. Some activities in life have properties that are good making which cannot be reduced to pleasures. The promotion of happiness should not be used as the single most important factor in determining what is right. A solution can, however, be suggested to seal the loopholes in Mill’s argument. In drawing the line between various levels of pleasurableness, the realization of the noble experiences that are intrinsic in nature can be used. Behaviors and actions considered as noble but not fit to be referred as pleasurable fail to contribute positively to a good life.

Mill’s Lasting Influence

Despite the weaknesses of the ideas propounded by Mill, his ideas remain to be a point of reference for many scholars and researchers in the field of social sciences. Just like other classical scholars, whose works have contributed greatly to understanding epistemology, Mill’s ideas and ideals have stood the test of time.

Works Cited

BLTC. Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill (1863).Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is. BLTC, 2017, https://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Layard, Richard. “The Greatest Happiness Principle:Its Time Has Come.” DICE Report 8.4 (2010): 26.