Mo Money Mo Problems

Time for a little more John Stuart Mills. The 3rd chapter of Utilitarianism is entitled “Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility.” I understand this to mean, “From where does the utilitarian principle derive its authority?” I admit to not really understanding Mills’ argument in this chapter. His basic point seems to be that any moral framework takes on a sense of authority when we are raised in it, and that the best sign of the authority of the utilitarian principle is that people who have some sense of unity with the whole – of care for the utility of others – deem it to be a worthwhile capacity.

The potential moral faculty

Mills makes an observation that we take the morals we have been raised in as though they were a part of our nature. So whatever moral principles we have been brought up with seem to take on the weight of brute facts – when in fact they are mutable. Mills imagines a future when “the feeling of unity with our fellow creatures shall be…as deeply rooted in our character, and to our own consciousness as completely a part of our nature, as the horror of crime is” to most people.

Having made this observation, he then proposes that the utilitarian principle requires no more or less proof than any other moral principle, and goes on to discuss both external and internal sanction. External sanction being the “hope of favour and the fear of displeasure from our fellow creatures or from the Ruler of the Universe.” As regards internal sanction, Mills discusses duty, and observes that “the ultimate [internal] sanction…of all morality… [is] a subjective feeling in our minds.” The idea that our thoughts about the world lie at the center of our moral principles is compelling. As we generate knowledge, as our consciousness about the world is raised, this changes our morality.

Utilitarianism and the advancement of civilization

Mills does believe that the utilitarian principle has a ‘natural’ basis. He locates this natural sentiment in the “social feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures.” He refers to it as strengthened by and contingent upon the continued advancement of society.

“In an improving state of the human mind, the influences are constantly on the increase, which tend to generate in each individual a feeling of unity with all the rest; which feeling, if perfect, would make him never think of, or desire, any beneficial condition for himself, in the benefits to which they are not included. If we now suppose this feeling of unity to be taught as a religion, and the whole force of education, of institutions, and of opinion, directed, as it once was in the case of religion, to make every person grow up from infancy surrounded on all sides both by the profession and by the practice of it, I think that no one, who can realize this conception, will feel any misgiving about the sufficiency of the ultimate sanction of the Happiness morality.”

“He comes, as though instinctively, to be conscious of himself as a being who of course pays regard to others. The good of others becomes to him a thing naturally and necessarily to be attended to, like any of the physical conditions of our existence.”

A note on capacity

In examining from where the utilitarian principle derives its authority, Mills talks about “the moral faculty” in terms of human capacity. We are not born displaying the moral faculty, but we have the capacity to develop a sense of ourselves as part of the whole – a sense of caring about the well-being of others. Mills discusses other “acquired faculties” such as speech, reason, farming and the building of cities. All acquired faculties are “susceptible of being brought by cultivation to a high degree of development. Unhappily it is also susceptible, by a sufficient use of the external sanctions and of the force of early impressions, of being cultivated in almost any direction.”

Reflection

The topic of sanction or the authority of a moral framework is a compelling idea. In the Baha’i Faith, something is true – something derives its binding force – because the Manifestation of God is writing the world anew through His pen. Reality is literally reshaped by the Word of God. So that’s why unity is important, why justice is important within that framework.

It seems, in part, that Mills addressed the sanction of the utilitarian principle precisely because he felt a need to defend the framework against criticism. What does it mean to discuss sanction in today’s work? The very idea of authority is looked at with mistrust in post-modern thought. As our book group continues studying Revelation and Social Reality, that book may offer some useful ways forward.

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