The Philosophy of Swine

According to Jeremy Bentham, Mill’s intellectual ‘godfather’, nature

placed mankind under the governance of two masters: pain and pleasure;
following that, he asserts that we work to maximize pleasure and avoid
pain. This kind of perspective is aligned with psychological hedonism,
where it states that humans are psychologically constructed in such a way
that they exclusively desire pleasure while ethical hedonism is the view that
the fundamental moral obligation of human is to maximize pleasure or
happiness (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica 2018). John Stuart Mill
(1861) endorsed this saying, “that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the
only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things are desirable
either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as a means to the
promotion of pleasure and prevention of pain”. And to Bentham, cardinal
ranking of pleasure is possible. This entails that the greatest cultural
achievement can be outweighed, eventually, by enough sensual pleasure
and so this thought actually reduces humans into pigs.
Mill’s understanding of the good is aligned with the principle of utility
or ‘the Greatest Happiness Principle’ (Cookson 2003). This means that the
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill 1861). Although Mill’s
definition of good is similar, if not identical, to Bentham’s, Mill still wanted to
reject the concept of cardinal ranking but retain the basic concept of
psychological hedonism. He argues that, although we are motivated by
pleasure and pain, we are still able to differentiate higher and lower forms
of pleasure. Higher forms of pleasure manifest elevated capacities of
human intellect and creativity thus calling it mental pleasures. Lower forms
of pleasure are basically those fulfilled by sensual gratification. Accounts of
human prospering when involving more than sensuality or material
gratification are proofs of higher forms of pleasure.
However, how the forms of pleasure are differentiated vary between
thinkers. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham thinks that these forms of pleasures
can be cardinally ranked. This was evidently shown when Bentham said
that a push pin was a s good as poetry for the person doing it since both
give pleasure to the person doing it. This means that if we were to weigh
being able to finish a book with a basic sense of pleasure like scratching an
itch, if you aggregately combine itch-scratching continuously on one end, at
some point, this sensual pleasure would be more valuable than finishing a
book. If human were given enough swinish pleasures such as food,
warmth, sex, and sleep, at some point this would outweigh whatever they
might forgo in terms of their liberty creativity and individuality (Kelly 2003).
On the other hand, another philosopher Roger Crisp believes that they can
be ordinally ranked. You can’t tell, however, just how much a form of
pleasure surpasses the other. Crisp also says that they can be
differentiated based on the intrinsic character of the pleasures themselves,
but this entails that Mill is deviating from hedonism because he introduces
another standard besides pleasure (Donner 1991); though it is a fact that
someone experiencing a higher pleasure will value it higher than a lower
pleasure (Kelly 2003). This is because the value of a higher pleasure is just
recognized as being more valuable, but that difference in value cannot be
quantified. Just as Crisp (1997) said that their experienciable intrinsic
quality does not need to be quantified but is, by itself, an irreducible value.
Mill’s reasoning for this qualitative distinction is that there are people who
would not give up the higher pleasure for any amount of thee lower
pleasure. Crisp’s argument is similar to John Gray’s argument which
suggests that Mill has a neo-Aristotelian or eudaimonistic view of well-
being; which means that the good for man consists of numerous goods
(pleasure, autonomy, individuality) that cannot be traded off against each
other. Crisp’s views rule out the possibility of constructing a general welfare
function by summing the welfare of individuals. Another philosopher names
Jonathan Riley thinks that pleasures can be differentiated in terms of
intensity and duration. He also says that the loss of higher pleasures
cannot be compensated by lower pleasures. Riley’s view does not
completely deny trade-offs between what are taken to be higher pleasures
and lower pleasures. Despite the differences in value, Mill concluded that
the higher and lower pleasures are incommensurable (Crisp 1997).

Crisp, Roger. 1997. Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge.

Cookson, Maria Dimova. 2003. “Bentham, Mill and Green on the Nature of
the Good.” Journal of Bentham studies 6: 26-44.
Donner, Wendy. 1991. The Liberal Self: John Stuart Mill’s Moral and
Political Philosophy. London: Cornell University Press.
Kelly, William. 2003. “No time to worry: The relationship between worry,
time structure, and time management.” Personality and Individual
Differences 35(5):1119–1126.
Hauskeller, Michael. 2011. “No Philosophy for Swine: John Stuart Mill on
the Quality of Pleasures.” Utilitas 23:428-226
The Subjection of Women  
John Stuart Mill is one of the significant feminist that have emerged and
made a big impact on the modern world. As Susan Hekman (1992) wrote in
her work said, “In the nineteenth century one of the most impassioned
pleas from the equality of women in social and political life came from the
chief spokesman for the nineteenth century liberalism, J.S. Mill.”  
Being oppressed by his father James, Mill had a ‘passionless childhood’
without a female influence and this led to depression. While he was
depressed, he stumbled upon Marmontel’s Memoirs that made him realize
how important his mother was. But the major influencer for his feminist
views was his women’s advocate and philosopher, chaste friend turned to
wife Harriett Taylor. (Ring, 2009:345-346) 
On the nineteenth century, women’s rights, gender equality, along with
slavery spark major debates, rallies and revolutions especially on the
Western culture. America and England became the centers of these
rebellions and revolutions.  
Many women’s rights movements began in the early 1840’s in the Atlantic.
In America, these movements emerged from the anti-slavery movement.
Some advocates of the women’s rights are Sarah and Angelina Grimke,
who cued from the French revolution; African-American Maria Stewart and
Francis Ellen; William Lloyd Garrison, the most radical and celebrated
American abolitionist; and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. 
Anthony, Lucy Stone and others who modelled women’s rights manifesto.
The first American Women’s Rights Convention happened in Seneca Falls,
New York but the most controversial convention was held in London where
New York and New England abolitionist traveled with their husbands and
were denied to speak. (Ring, 2009:347) 
Suffragettes in England quickly became a norm that American women
activists travel to England to learn their ways. Emmeline and Christabel
Pankhurst of England engaged in violence, civil disobedience and street
fighting while in America, the process is being done through meetings and
talks. But while all of these are happening, John Mill published the article
“The Enfranchisement of Women” in Westminster Review in 1851. Mill was
elected to the House of Commons in 1865 and passed a petition about
women suffrage. (Ring, 2009:348) 
Written nearly simultaneously with On Liberty, however was published a
decade after, The Subjection of Women became the most iconic and
influential book for feminists.  In this book, he discussed how it is unethical
and unjustifiable how women are the subordinates of men and how
inefficient it is for the society.
There are four chapters in his book. The first chapter discussed Mill’s
reason on why he believed that the idea of women being inferior is wrong
and unjustifiable. He questioned the norms in which we have lived and
practiced, this was prominent on his statement “I do not therefore quarrel
with them for not for having too little faith in argument, but for having too
much faith in custom and the general feeling’” where he concretized his
stand that he is against the hierarchy we lived in where women fall under
men and not in the same level as them. He said that his ideas were not
derived from any one-sided politically or socially leaning arguments but
from the fact that since the beginning, women have already been the
slaves to men. However, when Mill suggests, a little further on, that men
might learn a lot about women by studying their wives, “it becomes clear
who controls the social experiment in women’s equality: the experiment
exists not for women but in order to provide a sufficient database by which
men may arrive at a statistically significant decision about whether women
are not to be their equals.” (Ring, 2009:349-351) 
On Chapter 2, Mill acknowledges the importance of women’s potential for
earning their own wages and states. He debates the notion that women, in
marriage, should be given the freedom to choose a job rather than just
being in the household doing chores. He discussed how the marriage
contract is unfair to women in  a way that they cannot acquire their own
property and their property will all be for their  consumption, as Mill (1869)
said “The two are called ‘one person in law,’ for the purpose of  inferring
that whatever is hers is his, but the parallel inference is never drawn that 
whatever is his is hers; the maxim is not applied against the man”, also, the
idea that the  wife are the slaves and the husbands are the master and
argued that it is unfair that  women have many obligations to men but there
is a few for the reverse. He argued that giving the women the power to
speak up or be equal to man in terms of decision making will do more good
than harm. 
On the next chapter, Mill detested that women are incapable of doing jobs
outside marriage. He argued that many women have already proven
themselves as equals to men and that there are still women that can
compete with men in terms of occupations and that disabling them in
having the occupations they deserve is inefficient for mankind. In here, Mill
discussed how women’s right to vote signifies the capability of women of
thinking critically and functioning in the society thus qualifying women for
the job opportunities they miss because of the discrimination. And also,
giving women the chance at opportunities, produces a more efficient way in
hiring – choosing those who are best qualified for the job, regardless of
sex. 
On the last chapter, Mill argued the perks of giving women the freedom to
choose, to vote and to be free. He laid out that women are significant with
their moral influences where he said that man can learn from women. He
gave examples like chivalry and charity, he stated that women having been
undergone to many judgements and challenges, their standard in character
is more powerful and of more value. He noted that the soft side of the
women equalizes the stern side of men giving it a complementary
advantage in reaching efficiency. He also added that women are influential
to their husbands for the same aspect. 
In a conclusion, Mill believes in liberal feminism where he views equality for
women in terms of a male-defined model: women can and should achieve
all the public benefits and privileges men garnered in liberal capitalist
society. He argues that giving women the freedom can lead to a more
efficient manpower, a more efficient mankind. He acknowledged the strong
influences of women to men and how the wife and the husband acts
complementarily.

References:
Hekman, Susan. 1992. “John Stuart Millsthe Subjection of Women: The
Foundations of  Liberal Feminism.” History of European Ideas 15(4-6):681–
86. 
Mill, John Stuart. 1972. The Subjection of Women. Cambridge: M.I.T.
Press. 
Ring, Jennifer. 2003. “J.S. Mill on the Subjection of Women.” Political
Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present ed. Boucher, David and Paul Kelly.
United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.