Utilitarianism (and the Baha’i Faith) Part 2
19 Sep
Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is
The Principle of Utility states, “Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends” (Chapter 2, para. 2). John Stuart Mills defines utilitarianism throughout the second chapter, and addresses a number of dissenting opinions, all of which boil down–in his view–to a failure to understand the meaning of utility. “The end [or purpose] of human action,” he says, is “an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and a rich as possible in enjoyments” for all.
Human nature – higher and lower pleasures
A central theme to Mills’ description of utility is that the higher capacities of the intellect give greater pleasure. Virtuous action and engagement of our rational faculties are more pleasurable than possessing an abundance of food or other material satisfactions. In one form or another, Mills employs this belief throughout the chapter to address utilitarianism’s detractors.
In his belief that humans derive greater pleasure from virtuous actions, and in his belief that all human beings possess a desire to be virtuous and enlightened, Mills echoes Mencius, a Chinese philosopher writing 2,100 years earlier. In the following passage, Mills discusses why those who are capable of higher pleasures forego them for the lower:
Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into which it has thrown them, are not favourable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise. (Mills, Chapter 2 para.7)
This reminded me strongly of Mencius’ discussion of human nature, which Negin cited earlier on this blog:
The trees of the Niu Mountain were once beautiful. Being situated, however, in the borders of a large state, they were hewn down with axes and bills; and could they retain their beauty? Still through the activity of the vegetative life day and night, and the nourishing influence of the rain and dew, they were not without buds and sprouts springing forth, but then came the cattle and goats and browsed upon them. To these things is owed the bare and stripped appearance of the mountain, and when people now see it, they think it was never finely wooded. But is this the nature of the mountain?
And so also of what properly belongs to man; shall it be said that the heart of any man was without benevolence and righteousness? The way in which a man loses his proper goodness of heart is like the way in which the trees are denuded by axes and bills. Hewn down day after day, can it – the heart – retain its beauty? …Therefore, if it receives its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not grow. If it loses its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not decay away. (Mencius, Book 6, Part 1, Kâo Tsze)
Self-interest and the public good
There is a dominant conceptual framework that says we are all self-interested, and that our society can attain the most good by allowing each of us to pursue our self-interest. In fact, this is often confused with utilitarianism. But Mills refutes this idea when he defines the goal of utilitarianism as “the greatest amount of happiness altogether,” not just for the individual [emphasis mine]. And he makes it clear in this chapter that the greatest good may sometimes require individuals to renounce their own immediate self-interest.
Mills actually cites selfishness as one of the principal causes of a lack of utility or pleasure. In contrast to the view of homo economicus–the self-interested individual–Mills states that there is no inherent necessity that any human being should be a selfish egotist. Human beings are capable of much more. Mills says that we are capable of two related aims:
- Genuine private affections
- Sincere interest in the public good
This two-fold purpose of individual development and community well-being seems to align with a new conceptual framework offered by the Baha’i Faith. Mills goes on to suggest the type of society that would grow out of the Utilitarian principle. It would be possessed of laws “to establish in the mind of every individual an indissoluble association between his own happiness and the good of the whole.” This is a profoundly powerful, unified statement. John Stuart Mills seems to reject the false dichotomy between private and public good. Today we read a statement like this in one direction: “My happiness is good for the whole,” instead of taking a more holistic view: “I must rationally decide what is best for the whole, even if it entails personal sacrifice.”
Utilitarianism and the Baha’i Faith – Initial considerations
This view of human potential seems similar to the spiritual realities revealed by Baha’u'llah writing in the Middle East a few years earlier. However, Baha’u'llah’s Writings exhort the friends to be of service to others. Mills perhaps suggests a zero sum game: if serving your self-interest garners more total happiness than serving someone else’s interest, it is better to serve yourself. If greater total happiness can be won by sacrificing for the good of the whole, then do so.” In contrast, Baha’u'llah asks the believer to “preferreth his brother before himself” (Tablets Revealed After the Kitab-i-Aqdas, tenth leaf, page 71). Abdu’l-Baha, His son, describes this ethic further–with no mention of self-interest:
First, you must become united and agreed among yourselves. You must be exceedingly kind and loving toward each other, willing to forfeit life in the pathway of another’s happiness. You must be ready to sacrifice your possessions in another’s behalf. The rich among you must show compassion toward the poor, and the well-to-do must look after those in distress. (Abdu’l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 215)
This is Part 2 of a Series. Read the other parts:
