Chancellor Martin

10/11/20

PHIL 1120

Spike, Ananda

Utilitarianism: Bentham and Mill

Jeremy Bentham, and later John Stuart Mill, were the originators of a moral philosophy

known as utilitarianism. First proposed by Bentham in his book “An Introduction to the

Principles of Morals and Legislation”, published in 1781, it has taken root in the public

consciousness ever since. Utilitarianism has done a lot of good for the world, as it improved the

treatment of many groups, championing women’s rights and aiding the poor, all things that

were very foreign at the time.1 Bentham and Mill agreed on most of the tenants of the

philosophy, but differed in some regards as well, and Mill expanded upon Bentham’s ideas in

such a way as to make them more useful.

What is utilitarianism, exactly? It can be best defined as consequentialist moral theory.

This differs from many other theories, as it puts the focus solely on the outcomes of actions,

rather than on the moral goodness of the action itself. “The emphasis on happiness or pleasure

makes it hedonistic, for happiness is the only intrinsic good.” 2 The consequences that it is

concerned with are the amount of good that an action can bring into the world. Utilitarianism

takes its name from it’s focus on utility, and in this case that utility is focused around

maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people, while it also looks to minimize pain
1
Chapter 5 and 6 lecture slides 9.22.20
2
Vaughn, “Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues” (2019), pp. 85
for the greatest number as well. This can be contrasted with nonconsequentialist theories,

which are more concerned with the moral rightness of actions in and of themselves, rather than

on the outcome of those actions. Utilitarianism, for example, can potentially justify things that

would normally, on their own, be viewed as morally bad. Let us for a moment think about the

trolley problem. You are the conductor on a trolley, when you notice that you are about to hit

and kill five innocent workers that are on the track. You can, at the last second, switch over to

another track, but this action would result in the death of one innocent worker. What

utilitarianism would have us do is switch the track, saving five people and killing one. Some

might take issue with this choice, however, because you are in essence killing someone when

you could be justified doing nothing as you are not taking an active role in killing the original

five people. It’s not an easy decision either way, but while killing anyone is wrong by itself, the

reason that utilitarianism has stuck around for so long is it speaks to our intuitive sense of

justice, at least in theory. An outcome where fewer people die does feel better than having

more people die.

Bentham was the first person to put forth the theory. “Bentham called the utilitarian

principle the principle of utility and asserted that all our actions can be judged by it.” 3 He

believed that all actions can, and should, be judged by the amount of pleasure and/or pain that

they produce. That was utility for Bentham. In fact, he also devised a way to calculate the

amount of utility that was generated by an action, which is typically called hedonic calculus. 4

Bentham came up with many metrics to calculate actions by, such as the intensity of the

pleasure, the duration of it, how many people are effected, etc.. This is an interesting way to

3
Vaughn, “Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues” (2019), pp. 85
4
https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html
look at human actions, and it combats some of the issues that initially arise from the principle.

One might ask themselves if consequences that happen far into the future, such as from

burning fossil fuels, would be worthy of consideration. For Bentham, things like that do matter

and are incorporated into these calculations. This system is not without its flaws, however. For

one, it goes against one of the most important things about an ethical theory, which is that it

needs to be useful in everyday life. Sure, it could certainly be used to calculate the morality of

any given action, but it seems pretty obvious that this is unworkable for the vast majority of

decisions that people make. Nobody is going to be able to use this system when confronted

with a decision that needs to be made in seconds, so it calls into question it’s usefulness.

Unsurprisingly, it didn’t really carry on past Bentham, as it would also be a difficult thing to keep

using over time. People would constantly need to be reworking the equations as thinks like

technology advance, because our actions have much farther-reaching consequences now as are

result of things like fossil fuels and globalizations, than they did in Bentham’s day. Bentham’s

contribution to philosophy and ethics is undoubtably significant, and his work allowed others to

come along after and improve upon what he started.

Mill used similar, although slightly different language to talk about his philosophy.

Instead of referring to the principle of utility, Mill called it the greatest happiness principle. 5

They had similar goals; to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, but

Mill did not believe that all pleasure was created equally. As he famously put it, “It is better to

be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool

5
Vaughn, “Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues” (2019), pp. 85
satisfied.”6 Another way to put it “pleasure can differ in quality and quantity… pleasures that

are rooted in one's higher faculties should be weighted more heavily than baser pleasures.” 7

For Mill, not all pleasure should be considered to be equal. He considered some pleasures to be

of a higher quality, hence the Socrates quote. He believed that a life dedicated to intellectual

pursuits, for example, would yield a higher quality of happiness than one devoted to purely

carnal pleasures (eating unhealthy foods, doing excessive amounts of drugs, lots of sex, etc.).

He said that this argument was self evidently true. Mill felt that humans have a higher capacity

for reason than other animals do, and that we would always want to gravitate towards these

higher level pleasures as opposed to the more basic ones, as this would lead to a greater sense

of fulfillment.

As stated earlier, there are some problems with Bentham’s implementation of this

system. The hedonic calculus was messy and impractical. He did a lot in coming up with this

theory, and he set the stage for Mill to come in and improve upon it. Ultimately, Mill was

correct in his statement that there are levels to pleasure, and that these better pleasures are

ones that we should be striving for, both as individuals and as a society at large. It’s no secret

that in many cases, these lower level pleasures are quite fleeting, and are never as good as we

anticipate them to be. This is a concept that goes along with another idea known as the

“hedonic treadmill”8, which is the idea that most people are trapped in a never ending cycle of

a pursuit of pleasure, never actually attaining any sort of lasting happiness. While this term

came into being a long time after Mill, it still captures what he was saying quite nicely. Mill

believed that these lower level pleasures would never leave someone with a long-term
6
Mill, “Utilitarianism”(1879), page 19
7
Chapter 5 and 6 lecture slides 9.22.20
8
Brickman; Campbell (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society.
happiness, nor would that happiness ever be of the same quality. Many of us would agree that

attaining intellectual knowledge, forming lasting and meaningful connections with other

people, or creating something of lasting value leaves us with a powerful sense of well being and

fulfillment that could never be matched by a night of binge drinking or watching funny videos

on the internet. Mill was onto something truly profound when he made his distinction between

different levels of pleasure and gave us some very useful ways to discern between the two. All

of us would do well to incorporate this concept into our lives if we want to experience a more

lasting happiness than many of us typically experience.

Bentham and Mill agreed on the bulk of their philosophy, but where they differed was

really quite amazing. Mill drawing a distinction between certain kinds of pleasure is self-

evidently true, and we need only look at our own experience to verify it. Utilitarianism has been

a part of ethical discussions since its inception, and there’s a reason that it is the dominate

consequentialist theory today. We all want to experience pleasure, and to avoid pain, and this

system provides for us the best way to do just that. Utilitarianism has arguably created more

good in the world than any other ethical theory, and Mill played a huge role in that.