LESSON 3 Principle of the Greatest Number At the end of this 1 3 880N, you are expected to: understand the principle of the greatest number; distinguish higher from lower pleasures; and apply the distinction in understanding utilitarianism. THINK Principle of the Greatest Number Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent alone and independently from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high, intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest number affected by the consequences of our actions. Mill explains: | have dwelt on this point, as being part of a perfectly just conception of utility or happiness, considered as the directive rule of human conduct. But it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immediately a gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit. But the bare enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutations superfluous." Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness alone; it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute a moral good. If we are the only ones who are made happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others. This means that it is necessary for us to consider everyone's happiness, including our own, as the standard by which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that utilitarianism is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality of life for all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone's happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest number.Mill identifies the eradication of disease, using technology, and other practical ways as examples of utilitarianism. Consequently, utilitarianism maximizes the total amount of pleasure over displeasure for the greatest number. Because of the premium given to the consequences of actions, Mill pushes for the moral irrelevance of motive in evaluating actions: He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays the friend that trusts him, is guilty of a crime, even if his object be to serve another friend to whom he is under greater obligations. But to speak only of actions done from the motive of duty, and in direct obedience to principle: it is a misapprehension of the utilitarian mode of thought, to conceive it as implying that people should fix their minds upon so wide a generality as the world, or society at large. The great majority of good actions are intended, not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he is not violating the rights—that is, the legitimate and authorized expectations—of anyone else.'? Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people. It is not interested with the intention of the agent. Moral value cannot be discernible in the intention or motivation of the person doing the act; it is based solely and exclusively on the difference it makes on the world’s total amount of pleasure and pain. This leads us to question utilitarianism’s take of moral rights. If actions are based only on the greatest happiness of the greatest number, is it justifiable to let go of some rights for the sake of the benefit of the majority? EXPERIENCE The utilitarianism of Bentham seems to argue that the interest of a few persons can be sacrificed if it benefits a greater number. In this case, is it more preferable to build a church rather than build a firing range (say because there are more churchgoers than soldiers in need of firing ranges). Do you agree?