John Stuart Mill
1806 – 1873
1
Background
A
child prodigy who had a
nervous breakdown at 20 and
who’s life was saved by reading
Wordsworth and Coleridge.
 Would the Lyrical Ballads
(Wordsworth) have saved us?

What Mill disliked about Bentham’s view:
It failed to differentiate us from
animals.
 It failed to account for the fact that we
think of some pleasures (achieving
an A grade) superior to others
(playing computer games).
 A qualitative distinction.

Mill wanted to argue that some
pleasures were “higher”
“It is better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”
(Mill p 260)
Here’s a list of pleasures. List them

in











descending order of
enjoyableness?
Eating an ice cream
Eating oysters
Listening to Britney Spears
Listening to Mozart
Going round an art gallery
Watching Neighbours
Reading a novel or poetry
Running a race
Playing Rugby
Watching Rugby
Was Mill just a snob???????
Mill argued that the lower
pleasures were of the mind, and
the higher of the body.

He felt that, after the lower
bodily needs were met we could
attend to the higher spiritual,
moral, cultural pleasures.
(Who decides? Only someone
who’s experienced both)
Vardy and Grosch comment:

“On this view, a person who eats and drinks in
moderation in order to design elegant, ecologically –
sound clothing is morally superior to the person who is
anxious to produce quick, profit-making designs in order
to pursue the pleasures of sex, food and drink”
(1994:79)
W.D. Ross argued that this
produces counter-intuitive
outcomes
 Example:
who do we save in the
burning bus, our son or a famous
heart surgeon who has potential
to save thousands?
Ross argued we have a prima
facie (before anything else) duty
to save our son





Duty
Instinct
Love
override………..
Reason (The Utilitarian application of
GHP)
Summary




Bentham’s hedonistic utilitarianism is
Unworkable (imperfect knowledge + daft
idea of utils)
Selfish
Counter-intuitive (happiness is not the
same as pleasure)
Summary: Mill




Mill’s is
Snobbish (why isn’t my rap music as good
as your Mozart?)
Counter-intuitive (duty and love contradict
it)
Ambiguous (was Mill an Act or Rule
Utilitarian?? Or a virtue ethicist?)
Act or Rule

Act = follow the action that maximises
pleasure (Bentham) or happiness (Mill)
Rule = follow the rule which maximises
happiness. Mill talks about “guidelines”
proved by experience, like a nautical
almanac.
Rule Utilitarianism

The correctness of a rule is determined by the amount
of good it brings about when it is followed.

Or……..the practice of following a rule (always stopping
at red lights) creates greater happiness than allowing
people discretion (eg stopping only when something’s
coming the other way).
The British v the Italian or Greek
worldview!!!!!
Which was Mill?
In Utilitarianism Chapter 2 Mill
states:
“Actions are right in proportion
as they tend to promote
happiness … by happiness is
intended pleasure and the
absence of pain” (1991:137)
But on the other
hand…..




When defending rights, he seems to be a
rule utilitarian:
“To have a right, then, is ..to have
something which society ought to defend
me in possession of. If the objector goes
on to ask, why it ought, I can give no other
reason than general utility.”
Is this the same as the traffic light
example???
General happiness = everyone protects
Maybe he took a compromise
position



Justice demands we keep the
rules…unless…there’s some overriding
social duty to break it in this individual
case eg to save a life
A pragmatic rule utilitarian view?
Or is Mill a virtue ethicist? He argues for
maximising “not the agent’s happiness,
but the greatest amount of happiness
altogether” (1991:142) this requires
sympathy and nobleness of character, he
argues.
Mill appeals to virtue


Mill concedes that for everyone to accept
the utility of society needs “a certain
nobleness or generosity of character”
(1991:142)
So for social utility to thrive, we need:
 Education for all (eg to transcend selfishness)


Elimination of poverty (eg so all can enjoy higher
pleasures of music and books)
Are we back to Aristotle’s habits of
character?
Summary: multilevel
utilitarianism
Level 1: Follow rules which social experience has found
promote the general happiness. These are guidelines. he
uses the phrase “secondary principles”.
Level 2: Revert to act utilitarianism when facing a moral
dilemma. Mill himself argues it’s okay to kidnap a surgeon
who refuses to come with you in order to save the lfie of
your friend. The greatest happiness principle Millc alls the
“primary principle”.
19
Case Study 1
Charlotte Corday
Charlotte came from a small French village
in 1794 in order to kill Marat, who was
responsible for listing thousands for death
by guillotine in the Great terror of 1793.
Her final words
 She
was caught and guillotined.
When asked whether she had
anything to say she replied:
 “Yes.
I succeeded!”
Case Study 2
Titus
Oates
Titus Oates


Caught in a blizzard for a week without
enough food, Titus walks out into the
storm:
“I may be gone some considerable time,”
he says, (and was).
Case Study 3



The East Lancs division come in on the
Gallipoli beaches in the second wave at
Cape Helles in 1915.
One of the first VCs they won was (name
unknown, will fill in)
He threw himself on a grenade his
colleague had dropped, so saving the
platoon
Jim and the Indians



Bernard Williams argued that Utilitarian
George would take job working in a
chemical research plant if it was the only
job available and….
Jim when faced with the choice of killing
one Indian himself so that 20 were saved
from certain death, would kill the one
Indian.
But you and I wouldn’t necessarily do
either. Why?

“A feature of utilitarianism is that it cuts out
a kind of consideration…. that each of us
is specially responsible for what he does,
rather than for what other people do. This
is an idea closely connected with the
value of integrity."

So Utilitarianism goes against the idea
of personal integrity.