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:

1. Genuine private affections
2. 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:

1. Notes on John Stuart Mills’ Utilitarianism
2. Utilitarianism (and the Baha’i Faith) Part 2

Published in 1871, Utilitarianism is a slim volume which attempts, in just 5 chapters, to prove the Utilitarian Principle as a philosophical theory. Mills seemed to be searching for some fundamental principle from which a science of ethics could grow.

Chapter 1: General Remarks

Mills is searching for the “first principles” of the “science of morals.” He begins by asking how we distinguish right from wrong, and equates this with asking, “What is the foundation of morality?” (He suggests a dichotomy going back to ancient Greece: Socrates’ theory of utilitarianism versus the sophists.) He admits that the first principles of any science are prone to contention, and then discusses differences between the pure science of mathematics and the “practical arts” of morality and legislation. Ultimately, Mills is searching for a test of right and wrong from which he can build a moral framework.

Do we have a natural moral faculty that distinguishes right from wrong? Mills seems to think not. But if we did, he says, the moral faculty would branch out from our rational faculty – reason – and not from our sensitive faculties – sight, sound, etc. You can’t taste “rightness.” This moral faculty would provide principles of moral judgement in the abstract, as opposed to directly guiding us. i.e. We must engage our rational mind to distinguish between right and wrong based on principles. Mills believes that there is a science of morals, and that it must be deduced from principles. There ought to be some fundamental principle at the root of moral philosophy.

“Whatever…consistency these moral beliefs have attained has been mainly due to the tacit influence of a standard not recognized.” Mills proposes that Jeremy Bentham’s “greatest-happiness principle” is that unrecognized standard, and that it has had “a large share in forming…moral doctrines.” This is to say that, “the influence of actions on happiness” plays an important role in morals. He also seems to suggest that we need to look at the consequences of actions to determine their morality.

Mills is writing to convince the reader of his claim, and so he states that Utilitarianism should present enough ideas about its topic that a rational mind could decide whether to accept or reject the theory. However, in order to accept or reject, the theory must be “correctly understood.” Mills seems to think that there are some common misapprehensions of Bentham’s theory that stand in the way of correctly understanding the theory. Thus Chapter 2 focuses on “what utilitarianism [actually] is” in an effort to clear away some of these misconceptions before getting into the real work of philosophical theory and proof.

Reflection

Mills is searching for a solid foundation on which to build a “science of morals.” He introduces the principle of utilitarianism as the theory he believes will lay that foundation. The question of whether or not we possess a moral faculty is compelling, and Mills’ reminder that morality requires intellectual/rational engagement is much appreciated. We don’t have a biological organ that distinguishes right from wrong; we have to be trained to know the difference. But Baha’u'llah tells us that by the aid of Justice, we can “see with [our] own eyes and not through the eyes of others”:

O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.

Baha’u'llah, Hidden Words

Abdu’l-Baha notes that it is the intellect which allows human beings to “discriminate between right and wrong”:

If the animals are savage and ferocious, it is simply a means for their subsistence and preservation. They are deprived of that degree of intellect which can reason and discriminate between right and wrong, justice and injustice; they are justified in their actions and not responsible

Abdu’l-Baha, speaking at Stanford University

This is Part 1 of a Series. Read the other parts:

1. Notes on John Stuart Mills’ Utilitarianism
2. Utilitarianism (and the Baha’i Faith) Part 2