Notes on John Stuart Mills’ Utilitarianism

Ryan pointed me toward John Stuart Mills’ Utilitarianism, so I’ve begun to read it as part of an exploration of economics and moral philosophy. Notes and reflections will go into a series of blog posts here.

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