In Mill’s On Utilitarianism, Mill lays out his moral theory, utilitarianism. According to the utilitarian, the moral goodness or badness of an action is a product of the overall consequences of said action. If an action, on net, increases utility (happiness/pleasure) then the action is good or moral. If it, on net, reduces pleasure it is immoral. This theory differs from the ancient theory of virtue ethics and Kant’s deontology insofar as it is entirely concerned with the consequences of action, not the action itself or the actor. This moral theory stems from a simple justification: nothing is desirable except pleasure and avoiding pain. If these are the ends towards which humans ought strive, then a moral theory (utilitarianism) that best allows for that pursuit is justified.
It is this idea of utilitarianism that provides reasoning for attacking the received opinion on women (that they are the weaker sex) in Subjection of Women. Mill states, “Legal subordination of one sex to the other--is wrong in itself...and ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality” (261). He obviously does not agree with the idea that one sex is more powerful than another, and promotes this idea of equality because it would be the most utilitarian, providing the most happiness and least amount of pain to the most people.
When discussing the inequality of women, he often makes references to slavery, absolute monarchies, and other forms of privilege. In doing so, he is trying to point out that some systems, like slavery, were once thought to be natural phenomenons but are now illegal and greatly frowned upon in our current societies. He is also trying to make the comparison of women to slaves, such as when he says “men do not want solely the obedience of women, they want their sentiments...not a forced slave but a willing one” (271). The current system according to mill is “the primitive state of slavery lasting on, through successive mitigations and modifications” even goes as far as saying that men have enslaved the minds of women in order to make it unlikely that they are collectively rebellious to the power of men. While I wouldn’t say this is an accurate argument, I would agree with mill when he says that “the opinion in favour of the present system, which entirely subordinates the weaker sex to the stronger, rests upon theory only” (263). There have been no other attempts at trying out a new system in which women held power, simply allowing people to accept this corrupted system. I often wonder, what would it be like today in a reversed system?
To continue Mill’s theories from On Utilitarianism, he argues that “some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others” (186). Mill creates a sort of spectrum in which pleasures can range from higher pleasures to lower pleasures. Higher pleasures utilize the “higher faculties” such as thought and intellect, whereas lower pleasures are a less meaningful type of happiness. This would suggest that one would have a more enjoyable experience by attending a Shakespeare play rather than a party because it engages the higher faculties that a party would not. This theory also suggests, however, that those who are less privileged would be unable to access this sort of happiness. Those who are more impoverished would not necessarily have the access to attend such a play over a party, even if it is something that they would gladly partake in. Those who are more educated and have more money would be the ones who can obtain this higher pleasure. As a result of this reasoning, I would call Mill an elitist, because the higher pleasures could only be obtained by a special few. I do not think the idea of intellectual thinking being enjoyable a bad thing, just the fact that due to inequalities, not everyone has the ability to experience these higher pleasures.
No comments:
Post a Comment