RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL

UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB

JURISPRUDENCE PROJECT

TITLE: - JOHN STUART MILL’S ‘UTILITARIANISM’ – AN

ANALYSIS

Submitted By: - Submitted To:-

Rohan Gera Dr. Renuka Salathia

Roll No: - 20130 Asst. Professor of Jurisprudence

Group No: - 19 RGNUL, Punjab

 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

This certificate is to declare that this project based upon ―JOHN STUART MILL’S
‘UTILITARIANISM’ – AN ANALYSIS” is an original work of Rohan Gera, a student of
BA.LLB 2nd year, who is a bonafide student of Rajiv Gandhi National University of
Law, Punjab.

SIGNATURE

Rohan Gera
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and ultimate result of this undertaking required a great deal of direction and
help from numerous individuals and I am amazingly advantaged to have this from the
very scratch of this task.

I shall always remain obliged to the Vice Chancellor of RGNUL, Dr. G.S. Bajpai for
providing me an opportunity to showcase my project and skills in an esteemed
university like RGNUL.

I respect and express my gratitude to Dr. Renuka Salathia for providing me an

opportunity to do the project work in RGNUL and giving us all support and guidance,
which made me complete the project duly.

I am thankful to and fortunate enough to get constant encouragement, support and

guidance from all Teaching staff that helped us in successfully completing our project
work. I extend my thanks to all the staff members of the IT lab and library who
supported my research process.

Rohan Gera
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Cover Page.................................................................................................................01

B. Bonafide Certificate..................................................................................................02

C. Acknowledgement.....................................................................................................03

D. Table of Contents......................................................................................................04

1. Introduction……………………………………………………..........................05-08

1.1 Life of JS Mill..................................................................................................05-06

1.2 Concept of Utilitarianism……………………................................................06-08

2. Summarization and Analysis of the text - ‘Utilitarianism’………..................08-15

2.1 General Remarks.............................................................................................08-09

2.2 What Utilitarianism is?...................................................................................10-12

2.3 Ultimate Sanction to the Principle of Utility..................................................12-13

2.4 Proofs for the Principle of Utility...................................................................13-14

2.5 Justice and Utility............................................................................................14-15

3. Analysis of Utilitarianism....................................................................................15-18

3.1 Themes.............................................................................................................15-17

3.2 Pros and Criticisms..........................................................................................17-18

4. Comparison with Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism........................................18-20

5. Conclusion..................................................................................................................20

E. Bibliography..............................................................................................................21
1. Introduction

1.1 Life of JS Mill

John Stuart mill, often abbreviated as JS Mill was born in Pentonville, Middlesex in
1806 as the eldest son to Harriet Barrow and one of the most famous Scottish scholars
and historians, James Mill, who was a very close friend of Jeremy Bentham and Francis
Place, on whose connotations John was brought up and educated, which was based on
more rigorous and complex ideologies such as associationism and radical utilitarian
empiricist traditions as John learned Greek at the age of 3 and by the age of 8, he was
well acquainted with Aesop’s Fables, Lucien, Isocrates, Herodotus and 6 dialogues of
Plato1 and later, learned arithmetic, physics and astronomy in great detail.

Mill was much influenced by Jeremy Bentham, his father’s friend and they shared much
common principles based upon their work. He was also introduced to political economy
and that of works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who was also his father’s friend.
Mill also helped his father to edit the book the History of India at just a tender age of
11. Years later, Mill committed himself to utilitarianism after reading Bentham’s
Traités de Legislation, but this commitment was cut short by depression when he
was 20 and only was able to recover during the prosperous years of the Age of
Enlightenment where he was able to get some words of wisdom from the poetry of
Wordsworth and, even went towards rejecting Benthamism as he moved towards
more of positivism and sociology through his acquaintance, August Comte. 2

Mill's career as a colonial administrator at the British East India Company spanned from
when he was 17 years old in 1823 until 1858, when the Company was abolished in
favour of direct rule by the British crown over India. 3 He even had to defend the
Company’s rule by writing the Memorandum on the Improvements in the
Administration of India during the Last Thirty Year and even given a chance to be the
member of Indian Council, but he declined. 4

1
Cornell University Library Making of America Collection". collections.library.cornell.edu.
2
Pickering, Mary. 1993. Auguste Comte: an intellectual biography. Cambridge University Press. p. 540.
3
Mill, John Stuart. Writings on India. Edited by John M. Robson, Martin Moir and Zawahir Moir.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press; London: Routledge, c. 1990.
4
Lal, Vinay. 1998. "'John Stuart Mill and India', a review-article". New Quest 54(1):54–64.
Mill's thinking was additionally affected by Harriet Taylor, a significant utilitarian and
women's activist mastermind by her own doing, whom he became hopelessly
enamoured with. Mill appreciated Harriet greatly as she inspired large numbers of his
later works, remembering For Liberty and even The Subjection of Women. Mill got
dynamic in politics in the later phase of his life, serving as a MP for the Liberal Party so
as to represent the Worker section of the society before he died in 1873, outliving his
wife by 15 years.

He worked on a great number of works over the years of his life, such as System of
Logic, Theory of Liberty, in which, he articulated that only legitimate authority can be
exercised over an individual and also provides details of free speech, the others included
Utilitarianism and the Subjection of Women, where he promotes women rights and
makes the most important demand of the era, Suffrage to women.

1.2 Concept of Utilitarianism

The concept of utilitarianism is not new as the significance of happiness had been
recognized long before the contemporary era. It can be found, as early in works of early
scholars and theories of major hedonists of the time such as Epicurus and Aristippus,
Aristotle who argued that eudaimonia(Greek word for happiness and welfare) is the
highest human good and in the medieval era through the writings of Santideva in the 8th
century CE, but the tradition of modern utilitarianism began with Jeremy Bentham, who
is said to be the father of utilitarianism in the early 18th century and continued with
philosophers as John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, R. M. Hare, and Peter Singer.

Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that

maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals5 where a standard is
provided by which an individual ought to act and by which the existing practices of
society, including its moral code, ought to be evaluated and improved.6 Though there
may be different types and aspects of Utilitarianism, its major focus is to maximize
Utility, i.e. maximum happiness and related concepts or as defined in economics,
maximum satisfaction of wants. Whereas, Jeremy Bentham defined utility as "that

5
Duignan, Brian. [1999] 2000. "Utilitarianism" (revised). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 5 July
2020.
6
https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy
property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good,
or happiness...[or] to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to
the party whose interest is considered.‖7

Utilitarianism is a part of Consequentialism, which says that consequences of any act is

the standard to define what is wrong and what is right. It is very different from the other
forms of consequentialism, namely Egoism and Altruism, the view that each person
should pursue his or her own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any
ethical theory that regards some actions or types of actions as right or wrong
independently of their consequences whereas utilitarianism doesn’t depend only on
one’s interest, rather acts in interest of the human beings equally. Thus, utilitarianism is
a part of teleological ethics where the value of the standard of morality is brought about
by the consequences of one’s action which completely differs from the view of
deontological ethics where some actions ought to be performed regardless of their
consequences.

There are differences over what type of utilitarianism one must go with: -

● Act Utilitarianism (Direct Consequentialism) - This type of utilitarianism takes

in account the actions based on more or likely a certain result, meaning
evaluating an action taking in consideration the actual consequences but what is
the major shortfall of act utilitarianism is that it may even apply to specific acts
of torture or enslavement if it is sufficient to prove that these acts produce
enough happiness of the people.8
● Rule utilitarianism (Indirect Consequentialism) – It states that any act may be
correct if it conforms with the general rules or moral principles which leads to
the greatest welfare or, "the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a
function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance".9 It is argued
that what makes an activity right is that it follows a set of principles that if
widely recognised or obeyed, would have the optimal utilitarian effects and the
7
Bentham, Jeremy. 1780. "Of The Principle of Utility." Pp. 1–6 in An Introduction to the Principles of
Morals and Legislation. London: T. Payne and Sons. eText. p. 1.

8
Fieser, J. (2009). "Ethics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
9
Garner, Richard T.; Bernard Rosen (1967). Moral Philosophy: A Systematic Introduction to Normative
Ethics and Meta-ethics. New York: Macmillan. p. 70. ISBN 0-02-340580-5.
 morality of the action depends only on conformity to the rule rather than its
consequences.

The idea of utilitarianism has also been applied to various topics under discussion that
include social welfare economics, the major crisis of extreme poverty, the ethics to
bring-up animals for food, and also to the significance of preventing the very existential
risk to humanity. For Example – The 18th and 19th century utilitarians also did argue in
favour of the interests of non-humans/animals but failed to give attention to the
consequences of their principles such as rejection of animal exploitation and endless
wildlife suffering. Most animals used for human purposes suffer greatly during their
lives before being cruelly killed, and it's difficult to imagine situations where the
happiness brought to humans by such practises could outweigh the suffering endured by
the animals,10 which has led to an existential crisis in the long run.

2. Summarization and Analysis of the text – ‘Utilitarianism’

Utilitarianism, written by John Stuart Millis a series of articles, though compiled in

book was written to offer help for the value of utilitarianism as an ethical hypothesis,
and to react to misinterpretations about it. Mill gives the definition of the theory on the
basis of one common idea that,"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." This book was
mainly responsible for popularising ethics and been regarded the most significant
philosophical elocution of humanistic morality that was brought out in the nineteenth
century.

Chapter 1- General Remarks

Mill introduces his theory by explaining that there has not been much progress in the
work of ethics over a long period of time for determining a certain set of standards to
judge the actions being morally right or wrong. He thinks that the reason for the same is
that the philosophers have been involved in a meta-ethical confusion, which is, that they
fail to indicate rather conflate the First and Second principles unmistakably as they
articulate different second standards about acceptable behaviour ( example - what
should be done; how to obey rules, etc); however never clarify the hypothesis of moral
10
https://www.animal-ethics.org/ethics-animals-section/ethical-theories-nonhuman-animals/utilitarianism/
value that underlies these standards.11 Mill further points out that people have not been
able to come to a common consensus about the foundation of morality/ethics and the
same debate has been continuing over the years by comparing the consensus on the
foundations of any principle of science where it is common to have disagreements about
foundational principles. Moreover, Mill clarifies the stakes of utilitarianism: the ground
rules for morality that he establishes will allow him to infer a wide range of moral
standards and even governing principles from utilitarianism's central principle.

Mill further confronts the issue by introducing the idea of moral instinct and whether
existence of such instinct would rather eliminate the need to discover the basis of
morality. Mill does not oppose moral instincts rather indicates his preference of reason
over instincts, but in his book, he consistently indicates that an individual’s moral
instincts does line up with the utilitarian principles, implying that he doesn’t negate the
importance of one’s moral instincts.12 Mill explicitly states the core principle of his
theory, which he considers to be the rational thought underlying an individual’s moral
instincts. He believes that it is an undeniable fact that most people desire happiness and
if happiness is the ultimate good, everything that is good promotes the happiness of the
individuals and others as well. In the chapter itself, one finds mention of Immanuel
Kant, where Mill thinks that such a famous a-priori moralist needs to rely on utilitarian
principles as Kant went to great lengths to construct moral rules that were seemingly
founded only on rational thought, but ultimately appealed to the common interest of all
people, according to Mill.13

Mill bypasses other philosophers as he thinks that whether one uses either reason or
instinct, searching everywhere would lead to the same conclusion: more happiness is
better, less happiness is worse and any action cannot be evaluated as good or bad as
long as it impacts human happiness in some way or another. He concludes that
individuals have been unable to agree on what exactly the fundamental moral principle
is. He provides that his theory is an attempt to establish this principle at once, i.e.
principle of utility, and explain why it is so essential for human existence.

11
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/utilitarianism/section1/
12
Jennings, Rohan. "Utilitarianism Chapter 1: General Remarks." LitCharts. LitCharts LLC, 29 Oct
2019. Web. 7 Aug 2021.
13
https://www.cram.com/essay/Essay-On-Immanuel-Kant-And-John-Stuart/P3L4SMSZHBWQ
Chapter 2 - What Utilitarianism is?

Mill has two main purposes in this chapter: he wants to convey his simple ethical theory
concisely, and he wants to respond to the never-ending flood of criticism that it has
received. Mill tries to clear up any misunderstandings or misinterpretations concerning
utilitarianism, and in doing so, he depicts the main principle or hypothesis. Mill believes
that many people misunderstand utilitarianism by interpreting utility as the opposite of
pleasure. In reality, utility is defined as pleasure, and absence of pain, which indicates
the Greatest Happiness Principle. According to mill, utilitarians are of the view that
right actions are those that tend to increase and promote happiness, and wrong actions
are those that are detrimental to the promotion of happiness. The following are a few
criticisms that Mill provides his interpretation to. These are: -

 Happiness is merely about maximizing pleasure (inclusive of types of pleasure):

This is one of the most common criticisms of utilitarianism where it is often said
that happiness is only about maximizing pleasure, which makes human being
nothing less than a beast. The concept of Mill’s pleasure is expansive; it isn’t
like the earlier utilitarians depicted that our pleasures are the same, mainly
bodily pleasures. Mill isn't taking only hedonism into consideration, which
concerns itself mainly with bodily pleasures rather he is concerned with
something that human beings are blessed with; our ability to have complex,
intellectual, emotional and spiritual experiences means that true happiness
encompasses much more than physical feelings. In this process, Mill refutes the
confession of utilitarianism with hedonism and introduces a much more
straightforward way to rank pleasures. Mill outlines how to separate among
higher-and lower-quality pleasures: A pleasure is of more quality if individuals
would pick it over an alternate pleasure regardless of whether it is joined by
uneasiness, and on the off chance that they would not exchange it for a more
prominent measure of the other pleasure no one is a fool to chose a bodily
pleasure over a refined pleasure as it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied. 14Furthermore, Mill contends, it is an "undeniable fact" that, given
equal access to a wide choice of pleasures, people will gravitate toward those

14
Supra note 7
 that appeal to their "higher" resources but there might be circumstances where
individuals make mistakes and do consider bodily pleasure over refined
pleasure, Mill says, that either they know their mistake, they have to do so due
to some involuntary/forceful commandments of the unjust social system in
which they live in.
 Impossibility to always remain happy: Critics argue that it is impossible to be
happy always and renunciation is a better way to live than indulgence in
happiness. Here is the first criticism to which Mill argues that critics
misunderstand happiness as a static state of physical ecstasy/pleasure.
Happiness, in actuality, is experiencing "few and transient pains, many and
varied pleasures," as well as reasonable expectations.
 Concept of renunciation: Mill believes that peace can also result in happiness as
individuals can become more sensitive to the pleasures they do encounter if they
don't have much pain to deal with and people might also grow more sensitive to
excitement: while they may suffer, they can become insensitive to pain and
enjoy a lot of pleasure. Mill provides that an individual does not need to live an
ascetic life nor an adventurous/risk-taking one, rather every individual needs to
maintain their balance. Another contention is that those individuals who have
renounced happiness are more virtuous than others. He supports the contention
and provides the example of martyrs who sacrifice their happiness for the
greater good, thus admitting that sacrificing one’s happiness is the highest virtue
and the willingness to do the same would lead one to gain the best happiness.15
 Designating Utilitarianism as Expediency: The word expedient usually means
putting an individual's private interest over public benefit. This criticism is
simply based on the misinterpretation of the term as utilitarians tend to
maximize happiness and the collective good of the entire society or public.
Some people believe that utilitarianism permits people to make exclusions for
themselves by reference to the "greater good" in modern terms. For example,
one person lies about something, not taking into consideration a hundred other
lies that one needs to make to go with it and in the process loses others’ trust and

15
Jennings, Rohan. "Utilitarianism Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is." LitCharts. LitCharts LLC, 29 Oct
2019. Web. 7 Aug 2021.
 goodwill, which it comes from the authority, erodes and annihilate the moral
fabric of the society. Thus, common individuals making exceptions to act in
common good doesn’t rather lead to happiness, and contemplating the concept
of utility would help people avoid such errors.

Another criticism is critics propose that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine to which

Mill contends that God is only interested in "the happiness (welfare) of his creatures,"
making utilitarianism godlier than other ethical theories. Now we come to one common
question, i.e. how can one establish a society of intellectuals who have general affection
and interests to promote the public good? Mill emphasizes the spread of education
uniformly as education acts as a means to mental cultivation and brings about social
implications of utilitarianism which can only be possible by way of education. These
are: A society should ensure that all of its members have political and personal liberties,
as well as physical safety, economic stability, and access to the finest medical care
available, which acts as the very basics for the foundation of many democracies.

Chapter 3 – Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility

In this chapter, Mill like any other philosophy tries to prove why should individuals be
obligated to adhere to his utilitarian principles or simply can say, what makes
individuals act morally according to the utilitarian principles. For example, other
philosophers provide sanctions such as religious morality (binding force is God’s will)
to make people adhere to their philosophies. To put it another way, rule-based
moralities derive their authority from the source of the rules, which Mill considers as
Secondary principles. This permits philosophers to justify commanding others to follow
them, and it provides those who are asked to do so with a compelling reason to do so.
Mill in furtherance of the 1st chapter contends that people need to first understand the
central principle, i.e. happiness, and nothing but happiness is good.

Now, Mill brings forward the sanctions, i.e. the binding force or the reasons that compel
the individual to adhere to his principles. Mill classifies such sanctions mainly in two
categories16:-

16
https://www.utilitarianism.com/mill3.htm
 ● External Sanctions - These sanctions exist externally to the human agent as an
individual; they may take the form of peer pressure - the fear of their
disapproval - or divine pressure - the fear of his wrath. These sanctions act as an
ultimate moral fundamental to maximize happiness as a good reputation is a
reward for behaving for the common good, and God wants his creatures to be
happy.
● Internal Sanctions - These sanctions originate from one's heart; these comprise
of emotions as far as one could tell that when someone fails to fulfil an
obligation or think about acting immorally, it causes distress. These sentiments
can impact activities; if one has sufficient mental and intellectual cultivation,
and is even more powerful than the external sanctions as mill admits that some
people lack conscience and act morally due to external sanctions only.

Mill regards instincts as a useful tool because utilitarianism's results are largely in line
with basic moral instincts. Mill provides that the real power of his theory relies on the
natural sentiment of individuals - the social feeling of mankind (which needs to be
nurtured by way of education and law) for which Mill claims that utilitarianism has its
basic foundations in humans' social ideas ( - in their desire to be in solidarity with others
and their fear of others' dissatisfaction to promote the interest of the all. He contends
that people's interests must be acknowledged for society to develop relationships and
alliances that do not devolve into master-slave relationships and claims that if we
imagine this sense of social solidarity being taught in the same way that religion is
taught, and thus established as an inner sanction, utilitarianism would apply a
constraining power sufficient to influence actions. 17

Chapter 4- Proof for the Principle of Utility

After explaining his theory, defending it against its critics, and laying out what should
make it valid in the eyes of those who are asked to follow it, Mill now turns to one of
the most important questions in the eyes of the philosophers - what makes his theory
true. Mill introduces the chapter by saying that it is absurd to expect to demonstrate any
first principles by reasoning as it can only be explained by internal conscious /moral

17
https://www.sparkcharts.com/lit/utilitarianism/chapter-3-of-the-ultimate-sanction-of-the-principle-of-
utility
instinct. Mill argues the only way people could ascertain that something that they desire
is if the thing is desirable, thus trying to prove that happiness is too, one end of
morality. Mill provides an example to prove the same that the only proof that a sound is
audible is that people hear it. What he tries to explain is that a sound is audible,‖ which
can be explained through science but not proven as true by anything but human
experience, thus providing some basic conceptions that cannot be disproven.

According to Mill, happiness is not the only criterion for determining a person's
morality as individuals who adhere to virtue-based ethical systems do desire virtue and
the absence of vice. He claims that happiness is not an absolute concept, but rather one
that encompasses all of its components because people don't just want happiness; they
also want virtue, which is distinct but a big component of happiness. If virtue is proved
to be inherently valuable, then it’d pose a big objection to Mill’s utilitarianism that tries
to prove that happiness is valuable only to which, Mill responds that Virtue, like moral
impulses, is an ideal weapon for promoting the greatest good—virtuous people will
likely to act in the best interests of the community. Mill has proven that happiness is the
only goal of human life, the proper standard for making moral judgments about good
and evil actions, and the sole "criterion of morality" itself if he can show that no natural
human desire is anything other than a desire for "either a part of happiness or a means to
happiness and argues that the same a be proven through self-conscious or self-
observation where an individual thinks that something is desirable and pleasant at the
same time.

Chapter 5 – Justice and Utility

Mill devotes this final chapter to "the idea of justice" not only because he’s more
sophisticated detractors use it as evidence that simply estimating the outcome cannot
adequately capture its morality, but also because addressing justice allows him to lay
out a general procedure for dealing with moral instinct-based objections to
utilitarianism. Mill uses utility questions to examine if an activity's fairness or injustice
is inherent and evident. It's crucial to determine whether a sense of justice exists in and
of itself, or if it's secondary and shaped by a mix of emotions.
Mill begins by introducing the meaning of justice and also provides a list of things that
may be considered as just or unjust. For example: violating someone’s legal
rights(taking away liberty or property) or breaking commitments is unjust, having
preferences or being partial is unjust whereas getting something you deserve is justice
through which Mill provides his inference is that the instinct for what people ethically
deserve is ultimately utilitarian. However, Mill believes that the idea of equity is
frequently extended to areas where we would not need legislation: for example, we
usually believe it is proper that unjust deeds be rebuked, even if we believe it would be
inadvisable for courts to act as punishers in specific circumstances. The limit on the
state's ability to punish individuals in specific situations is motivated by pragmatic
worries about growing the state's power rather than a belief that the individual should
not be punished. Mill observes the fact that justice needs to be distinct from that of
morality as something is perceived as wrong based on law, opinion, or a person’s
conscience.

Mill goes on to describe two aspects of justice: the want to punish the person who has
done the wrong, which arises from self-defence and sympathy. Animals do exercise
self-defence but are not sympathizing as humans are and humans can better understand
the wider interests of the whole community. The natural instinct to counter-attack is
mirrored by justice, which is enlarged by compassion and intelligence to include those
situations and objects that may harm society. The second aspect of justice is that if
equity is violated, there is a recognizable victim who suffers. He claims that the concept
of a right isn't a separate concept from equity, but rather a manifestation of various
aspects of justice, namely the desire for discipline and the fact that there is a specific
individual who has been harmed. A right indicates that an individual has a strong case
in society to protect him from losing his privilege.

3. Analysis of Mill’s Utilitarianism

3.1 Themes

3.1.1. Happiness and Best Life

Mill clearly states that Utilitarianism is based on the idea of 'utility', which means
collective happiness of all, thus indicating that actions are good in proportion they
increase happiness and reduce pain. Mill's whole theory is based on the 'Greatest
Happiness Principle' which helps to determine the morality of an action. Mill imagines
that morals ought to precisely mirror the truth that individuals represent the sake of
pleasure and happiness.
Mill defines the best life as "an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many
and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of the active over the passive, and
having as the foundation of the whole not to expect more from life than it is capable of
bestowing." Mill thinks that a good life is not the one where one doesn't think about self
indulgence, rather cultivation. He is of the view as people have not experienced
everything in life, one must have the education and freedom to pursue various types of
pleasures that would help an individual to develop the traits of mental cultivation and
generosity, meaning taking interest in the public good and taking part in others
pleasures as a part of general happiness without being selfish respectively.

3.1.2 Common Good

Throughout utilitarianism, Mill considers envisions a society with collective interests,
values and institutions. He propels a dream of government planned explicitly to pay
special attention to the benefit of everyone by developing the best happiness for all
residents through the advancement of education and individualism. He thinks for
developing an equal and happy society, we have to create institutions based on moral
science and public trust. Thus, he suggests that one must promote improvement in
education as it not just permits the public authority to make individuals think as
far as the benefit of all, yet in addition gives individuals the degree of mental
development important to value life's better pleasures and also to protect an individual's
liberty as it is the most important constituent to create sense of collective interest should
accept that general principles will be upheld, which by and by implies legislations and
laws should ensure civil liberties.

3.1.3 Democracy
Mill had also been the author of the theory of a democratic and representative
government. His progressive ideas are also in light in his work of utilitarianism that he
rather focuses on the general good and torment of all those who live in the society and is
not based only on the pleasures and pains of the ruling class placed above all the others.
This was on the grounds that he stayed persuaded that men had been invested with the
characteristics in equity which make for sound political judgment. He dreaded the
results of straightforward dominant part rule while recognizing the equity of the
majority's case to some sort of extreme control in the society. He says that the
administration must not take in consideration to respect persons, rather give equal
weightage to happiness of all people individually to promote the greatest happiness
principle.18

3.2 Pros and Criticisms

Pros
 Promotion of Common Good - Mill certainly conveys the promotion of common
good by taking in account the happiness of all the individuals as it focuses on the
improvement in one's education and helps in the protection of an individual's
liberty. Mill provides the opportunity to every person who could seek his own
happiness and doesn't let an individual to encroach upon another's right in order
to maintain public trust and continue to promote common welfare of the society.
 Elevation of Intellect and Virtues - Mill's theory is focused to improve
Bentham's theory, which is often considered to be a Pig philosophy as it Mill
states that it is better to be a human dissatisfied that a pig satisfied. He rather
distinguished the pleasure in terms of quality and not in terms of quantity. He
establishes a notion that one could seek a higher pleasure than a lower pleasure
by way of intellect and abstains from reducing morality to mere bodily
sensations and sentiments.
 Altruistic Way of Living - Mill considers human as a social animal. Mill states
that by being a part of the pleasures that other people enjoy, a person's
individual pleasure may not decrease but increases the general happiness of the
society. Mill's idea is an extraordinary upgrade to social improvement. It takes
man's self absorbed propensities and bridles them to social necessities since
every individual sees his own satisfaction coordinated with that of the gathering.

18
Burns, J. H. “Utilitarianism and Democracy.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), vol. 9, no. 35, 1959, pp. 168–171.
JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2216436. Accessed 16 Mar. 2021.
Criticisms
 Consequences irrespective of motives - Mill's utilitarian standard underscores
the impacts of an activity. In the event, that an activity delivers an abundance of
useful impacts over unsafe ones, it is correct, else, it isn't. It implies that the
outcome of an activity decides its rightness or misleading quality, regardless of
the thought process in which the activity is performed. Adversaries of
utilitarianism have condemned this rule pointing out the abhorrent strategies that
may legitimize under certain conceivable or genuine conditions.
 Hedonism cannot be completely altruistic - This is one of the most common
criticisms of Mill's utilitarianism as many critics think that hedonism cannot be
altruistic as the ultimate goal for an individual is to seek pleasure for himself and
not to serve for others. One example of the same is in words of Martineau, that
"There is no road from each to himself to each for all." As I would see it, there
should be a balance among utilitarian and moral egoist hypotheses to accomplish
the most utility as the individual too needs self-improvement and self cultivation
in order to do better for the community.
 Lack of Justice and Equality - Scheffler in Consequentialism and Critic says that
"Utilitarianism’s vulnerability on issues of distributive justice can be attributed
to the specific way in which it evaluates outcome. Given any two outcomes with
different totals of aggregate satisfaction... utilitarianism will always say that the
outcome with the higher total is better even if satisfaction is distributed very
unequally." Thus, one may infer that in order to satisfy the greatest happiness
principle, it is permissible to isolate one innocent individual's life to torture to
save the nation as a legitimate means. Thus, utilitarianism fails to see uniqueness
of an individual and may even lead to inequality and injustice.

4. Comparison with Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism

Similarities

 Mill and Bentham’s theory is based on the idea of the consequentialism theory,
which means that both the theories evaluate morality of human actions based on
the consequences of human acts rather than the process of the actions that would
 result in those actions. The results of the actions are taken in account by
experience which determines the morality of the actions that an individual takes.
 Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance of
pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value
and disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic
values produced by two alternative actions and to estimate which would have
better consequence.19

Dissimilarities

 Talking about assumptions of human nature, Mill completely refutes Bentham’s

idea that man is any superior than an animal who always seeks for pleasure. Mill
says that man is far better than animals in terms of intellect and seeks
intellectual pleasure than that of sensual pleasure. He has the tendency and the
capacity of mind to make sufficient distinctions between qualitative and
quantitative pleasure.
 Pleasure as stated in Bentham’s theory is classified only in terms of quantitative
pleasure, which means that if the pleasure is equal in quantity, then there may
not be any difference between poetry and pushpin. Mill on the other hand, states
that pleasure does not differ in quantity, but quality as well. Mill says that it is
better to be a human satisfied than a pig satisfied, which means that pleasure out
of animal tendencies does not mean everything, rather what is important is the
mental or intellectual satisfaction than an individual may have. Bentham even
states that pleasure can be calculated arithmetically but Mill refutes that too.
 Bentham supports the concept of greatest good of the greatest number, which
means maximum happiness of the maximum individuals. This means that there
may be an issue of suppression of rights of minority communities by the
majority which satisfies the idea. Mill on the other hand supports individualism
and supporting the idea of greatest good only. He also believes that there may be
certain rights guaranteed to all individuals and be protected by laws and rules so
that justice can be done but Bentham doesn’t completely address the issue of
rights and their subsequent violation.

19
https://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html
  John Stuart Mill dismisses the prospect of Jeremy Bentham, which expresses
that the inspirations for people to act would all be decreased to one's own
interest and to his own investigation for the most extreme satisfaction. John
Stuart Mill refutes this by saying that an individual may likewise get
pleasure/fulfilment by joining or taking an interest in another person's
satisfaction. Basically, pleasure isn't just an outcome from one's own advantage
yet additionally from what mankind and harmony are experiencing.
 Bentham perceived just external sanctions. Yet, Mill perceived external, yet
inner authorizes additionally which would oblige the person to advance general
satisfaction, in light of the fact that each individual has an inclination for the
happiness of humanity.

5. Conclusion

In this project, we emphasised on John Stuart Mill’s concept of Utilitarianism. We

thoroughly discussed about the life of John Stuart Mill and briefed about his ideas in
brief along with his important works. Then we discussed about the background of
utilitarianism, the meaning of the concept as well as the difference between the two
major types of utilitarianism. We summarised the whole text of Utilitarianism written
by Mill in 1863 briefing about the crux of all the 5 chapters. Then we analysed the text
by focussing on the themes that the text tries to state including Happiness, Common
good and most importantly, Democracy. We even discussed about the major pros and
cons of the text including the fallacies pointed by major critiques and then a major
comparison including the similarities and dissimilarities between Mill’s and Bentham’s
concept of utilitarianism in which, Mill tries to refine the concept of Utilitarianism that
Bentham introduced in the modern society.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Text: - Utilitarianism by JS Mill

Websites: -

 https://phdessay.com/jeremy-bentham-versus-john-stuart-mill/

 https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/millsonph115/2014/09/30/utilitarianism-
2/#:~:text=John%20Stuart%20Mill%2C%20a%20very%20important%20philos
opher%20in,responses%20to%20common%20misconceptions%20people%20ha
ve%20against%20it.
 https://www.gradesaver.com/utilitarianism/study-guide/summary
 www.utilitarianism.net
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3093-a-brief-notes-on-
utilitarianism-a-study-on-bentham-and-j-s-mill-views.html
 https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/what-are-the-differences-
between-the-theories-of-mill-and-bentham/113045

Articles: -
 Burns, J. H. ―Utilitarianism and Democracy.‖ The Philosophical Quarterly
(1950-), vol. 9, no. 35, 1959, pp. 168–171. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/2216436. Accessed 16 Mar. 2021.
 ―Utilitarianism.‖ Ethics for A-Level, by Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher, 1st ed.,
Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK, 2017, pp. 11–29. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1wc7r6j.5. Accessed 16 Mar. 2021.