Discussion Starter: Mill and the Higher Forms of Pleasure

Mill’s consequentialist ethical framework of utilitarianism sets up a stark contrast to Kant’s deontological (sometimes referred to as duty/ rule based) moral theory. While Kant believed that one can judge the morality of an action based on a set of predetermined rules, Mill’s theory posits that each action can be deemed morally good or morally wrong purely based on the consequences that follow it. Mainly, how much happiness/pleasure (utility) is derived from any action. Mill’s On Utilitarianism is a work which focuses on attacking the common misconceptions of utilitarianism and defending its validity as a moral theory.

Early on in the text, we learn that Mill’s utilitarian theory abides by a specific hierarchy of pleasures, stating that not all pleasures are weighted equally. Mill claims that there is an inherent “superiority of mental over bodily pleasures chiefly in… their circumstantial advantages rather than in their intrinsic nature” (210). He further asserts that these intellectual kinds of pleasures are more desirable, and therefore, more valuable than others.

In order to prove that intellectual pursuits have more utility than corporeal pursuits, Mill fabricates an argument where he claims that the higher pleasures he previously referred to are more valuable because people who have experienced them are in agreement of their placement at the top of the hierarchy. Conversely, those with this shared experience who think otherwise, he argues, simply do so because they no longer have the capacity to properly appreciate the superior pleasures (212). Setting aside this rather convenient and circular argument, this assertion seems to make sense. It feels completely logical to value education, for example, over the human desire.  However, I struggle to find a way to comfortably fit this mentality into the theory which lays the foundation for utilitarianism: The Greatest Happiness Principle.

According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (210). Mill’s word choice here is important. By using the word ‘proportion,’ he automatically implies that we are thinking about the quantity, instead of the quality, of happiness that is produced. If we take this to be true, then, how can we start to factor in these higher pleasure that he is so fond of in comparison to more physical pleasures? At what point do the physical, and more lowly pleasure of a group of people outweigh the education of a single person?

Mill attempts to answer the issue about the differences of the qualities later on in the chapter (214) when he writes:

“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; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immensely a gainer by it”

In this explanation, Mill finally compares quality to quantity. Though he seems to finally place these higher pleasure in the context of the greater public, I still feel as though his explanation is incomplete. Ultimately, I believe that the Greatest Happiness Principle should be reworded in order to account for the different kinds of pleasures that Mill feels so fervently about.

Do we believe that Mill’s explanation is true? Can the education of a single person result in a net positive gain for the entire world? Should this same education retain its higher value if it comes at the expense of the contentment of a large group of people?