Does Mill’s description of ‘higher pleasures’ make him an elitist? Is that bad?
Mill states that, contrary to popular belief, utilitarianism takes both quantity and quality of pleasure incurred by an action into account. He argues that human pleasures are superior to animalistic ones. I think that I would probably think Mill was an elitist if I heard him explain this principle. After all, he does state that it’s better to better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. He also gives the example of an educated person choosing to exercise higher faculties over ignorance. Mill seems to privilege educated people who enjoy intellectual pleasures over less educated people. This is not to say, of course, that less educated people cannot enjoy pleasures that exercise their higher faculties. But sometimes ignorance is not a choice, as some people don’t have adequate access to education.
Moreover, I’d imagine that Mill would consider a book of Classical philosophy to be more of a source of higher pleasure than watching a movie, if he were to know what a movie was. But the book of Classical philosophy is more easily accessed through an education institution and more easily understood with formal instruction. In an ideal world, everyone would have access to the tools with which to access and enjoy Mill’s “higher pleasures.” But in reality, not everyone does. So yes, I think Mill’s description of “higher pleasures” is elitist, and that it’s bad considering existing inequalities.
To play "Devil's Advocate" I believe Mill's description of "higher pleasures" can be mistaken to make it seem like he is an elitist. In reality Mill is distinguishing between different forms of pleasure, "higher" intellectual pleasures and "lower" sensational pleasures. Although I might not necessarily agree that intellectual pleasures will lead to true happiness--one that is constant and independent--I do agree that sensational pleasures lead to unhappiness. Sensational pleasures are dependent on material possessions (people, places, things, situations, etc.), all of which are ephemeral. Things that have a life span are rooted in eventual pain and misery, exactly what Mill hopes to avoid. When referring to happiness, he clearly states, "the absence of pain," justifying his distaste for "lower pleasures" (210). He is cognizant of the vicious cycle of unhappiness that is the modern human life.
ReplyDeleteHere is a basic example. Imagine your 10th birthday. Do you remember what you got from your family and friends? Let's say it was a toy of some sort. Were you happy when you received that toy? A few months later were you still as happy as you were when you first received that toy? How about now?
As we can probably predict, you probably recognized that a material possession that you once had lost its utility. However, looking at yourself, looking within, you might be able to understand that this "toy" or sensational pleasure was never what we can consider happiness. Happiness is a state of being, not a feeling or mood. I believe this follows Mill's philosophy in a way as he guides us away from the sensational not in a stance of elitism or superiority, but with a fear of man's constant state in unhappiness and pain. Mill reminds us, "utility includes not solely the pursuit of happiness, but the prevention or mitigation of unhappiness" (214). Although a case can be made against intellectual pleasures and whether they can necessarily be considered "higher", a curiosity based on education and philosophy may lead to mindsets that can place people in a better opportunity to reach true happiness. Intellect eventually feeds the spiritual, which in my opinion is the true path to happiness.
(In response to Sohum)
DeleteYou make an interesting point in your comment. While I agree with the general sentiment of your post, I would challenge the assertion that sensational pleasures necessarily lead to unhappiness. One of the underlying suggestions posed by your comment is that lower forms of happiness actually cause more harm than good, and, by extension, more unhappiness than happiness. I’d have to disagree with this point. While I acknowledge the idea that intelligence ultimately yields the most utility compared to, using your example, receiving a toy for your birthday, I think there are more valid types of “lowly” pleasures. If these pleasures truly and directly resulted with unhappiness then Mill would argue that we have a moral obligation to refrain from taking part in them. Instead, Mill just makes it clear that there are more preferable types of pleasure/happiness than these ‘lowly’ pleasures. Furthermore, not all knowledge is as permanent as we want it to be. To use a relatable example, how much of the material do you actually learn when you cram for the final the night before?
The second issue I see with this claim is that all types of lowly pleasures are ephemeral - I don’t think this is the case. One example of a (hopefully) less ephemeral of this type of happiness is familial love. I acknowledge that there will always be exceptions and that this point isn’t true in all scenarios. However, I do think that Mill would categorize this type of happiness in the lower part of his hierarchy since it is one that can be felt by animals and less rational beings.
(In response to Ana)
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that Mill comes across as an elitist when he poses the hierarchy of pleasures you described above, I also think that Mill’s emphasis on education which comes as a result of this hierarchy is ultimately a positive thing. Though Mill never explicitly says that he believes that everyone should have access to education, I think we can extrapolate that he would advocate for this idea based on the value he places on intelligence. If everyone had access to education, they would have access to these “higher pleasures” in turn, and ultimately achieve a more valuable version of happiness- which is exactly what utilitarianism aims to achieve. Though Mill alludes to this hierarchical structure based on intellect, I think it’s safe to assume he has no intention of keeping this structure intact. In fact, I think we could argue that Mill wants to dissipate this hierarchy in order to achieve a more utilitarian end- a higher form of happiness for a greater number of individuals.