Tentative Answer: Mill on the Hierarchy of Pleasures

While reading Mill’s On Utilitarianism, I found his description of an existing “hierarchy of pleasures” particularly interesting. Mill writes, “some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others” (186). In his examples, Mill suggests that engaging your intellect (such as reading a Classical text) produces a higher form of pleasure than a sensory action, such as eating a hearty meal. While I understand and agree to an extent with the opinion that Mill’s categorizing of different pleasures as better or worse than others is inherently elitist, in the sense that different kinds of pleasure are not equally accessible to everyone, I do however think that Mill’s theory has some truth to it. At its most base level, Mill’s argument is that there are different types of pleasure that result from different actions and experiences, and some of those pleasures are more valuable than others. While I disagree that “putting your mind to work” through reading the Classics is universally more valuable than watching TV, I am inclined to believe that education in general is important, and that it’s valuable for most everyone to go through a certain amount of schooling. In another example, I would argue that while the pleasure one receives from eating good food is valuable in many ways, I wonder whether Mill was suggesting that each particular meal is not as valuable to someone as raising children or their work. Thus, I think that Mill’s theory lies in relatives; I do not think that everyone should pursue a career in academia as Mill might seem to suggest, nor do I think it’s reasonable to assume everyone has an equal opportunity to even consider that possibility. Yet, I think it’s interesting to consider the potential truths behind his idea, especially as they relate to our current established societal values.