What is Utilitarianism, Really?

In the last post, we saw a little bit of Bentham’s version of utilitarianism.  His version of this social philosophy was not the only one. 

John Stuart Mill was a contemporary of Dickens and an expert on utilitarianism.  In fact, he coined the term.  (Before Mill, utilitarianism was called Benthamism.)   Mill’s famous text, simply called “Utilitarianism,” outlined his ethical theories.  His goal with this text was to justify the utilitarian principle as the foundation of morals.  What we’ve seen of utilitarianism in Dickens, this sounds like it could be problematic.  How moral is a system that puts usefulness above happiness and ruins people’s lives?

Even John Stuart Mill would condemn such a system.   The Benthamists had gotten off track.  Dickens was portraying what utilitarianism could become at its worst.  Utilitarianism, according to Mill, was not about usefulness, Spartan furnishings, rote memorization of facts, or placing cold-hearted practicality above all else.  For Mill, within his system of utilitarianism, actions were right if they promoted human happiness.  The more happiness promoted, the more moral the action.  This was not about human rights or ethical sentiments, but rather the consequences of actions (Schefczyk). 

Mill equated happiness with pleasure.  Pleasure was the one and only desirable thing.  Mill was also convinced that not all pleasures were equal, some were better or more valuable than others.

This could be a problematic system.  After all, what makes one person happy might make another person miserable.  How could such a subjective moral system possibly work?

Well, things which seem to cause pleasure at first, but which actually cause harm or will be regretted later are not things that a person should seek.  (Partying too hard is probably not a good idea.  Darn.)

Furthermore, the pleasures that are more valuable are the ones that exercise the “higher faculties,” the intellect, the imagination, and moral sentiments (Mill, vol. 10, page 211).  These are higher because they use more developed thought processes, like judgement and empathy. 

Mill once famously said that “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” (Mill, vol. 10, page 212). This sounds like a funny thing to say if pleasure is the highest goal of life.  But the problem is that pigs do not possess the “higher faculties” that are so important to achieving the higher pleasures.  Furthermore, using the “higher faculties” can often make one more fully aware of the problems that are present in our world. 

Mill believed that almost everyone preferred living in a way that used these “higher faculties” to a way that did not (Mill vol. 10, page 211).  Since most people would agree, this was evidence that using these “higher faculties” was of a higher value.  Therefore, the best way to live would be to make use of the intellect, imagination, and moral sentiments, and to frequently exercise judgement and empathy.   These crucial utilitarianist skills were stifled rather than taught in Gradgrind’s school.   By Mill’s definition, Sissy Jupe, with her book of fairy stories and her empathetic response to the teacher’s heartless math questions about the proportions of starving children and drowning travelers, may be the most utilitarianist character in Dickens’ book. 

Works Cited

Mill, John Stuart. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Gen. Ed. John M. Robson. 33 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963-91.

Schefczyk, Michael. “John Stuart Mill: Ethics.”  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.D.  Accessed 6 April 2017. http://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/