John Stuart Mill's Rule Utilitarianism

-

John Stuart Mill, a student of Jeremy Bentham, was also a prolific philosopher and an advocate of political reform who became a Member of Parliament. Mill fought against colonialism, unfair wages and patriarchy. He compared the status of women in Britain to slaves and advocated full equality.

Mill developed Utilitarianism and focused not on the amount of pleasure or pain an action brings but rather on the on the type or quality of pleasure in response to the criticism that Utilitarianism leads people to act like swine. Mill held that if we distinguished between the quantity of pleasure and the quality of pleasure then pleasures of the intellect such as moral development, education and aesthetic appreciation are given their true value.

Mill therefore distinguished between moral/intellectual pleasures as higher pleasures and physical pleasures as lower pleasures. Mill argued that this would make a better and fairer society in which to live if we collectively sought the higher pleasures as a priority

The Harm Principle

The problem with Bentham’s Utilitarianism for Mill was that it was too individually focused. This did not account for times when there is a need for society to override individual pursuits.

Social reform was a case in point whereby colonial politics, the denial of women’s rights and poverty meant that the political tyranny of the few dictated the freedom of others to pursue happiness. He argued that society should be guided by ‘one very simple principle’ – the harm principle. This was to restrict the powers of individuals so that their actions would not cause the need for self-protection by other individuals.

Mill argued that if society maintained this rule then no one should be forced to do anything and individuals should be free to follow their own life plan. The harm principle allows people to progress in society under the most beneficial conditions and allows for both freedom and a variety of life experiences in which humans can apply the principle of utility.

Mill argued that if society maintained this rule then no one should be forced to do anything and individuals should be free to follow their own life plan. The harm principle allows people to progress in society under the most beneficial conditions and allows for both freedom and a variety of life experiences in which humans can apply the principle of utility

The use of rules

One criticism of Bentham was the impractical nature of continually calculating the course of individual actions. Mill instead argued that human beings had, throughout history, been learning from experiences of the past - ‘landmarks’ and ‘direction posts’ - implying that whilst not absolute they were useful.

Since Mill discussed the notion of using rules to guide us in applying the principle of utility, he is sometimes associated with the label ‘Rule Utilitarianism’. However, there is a debate about the extent to which Mill can be called a Rule Utilitarian.

Some people prefer to label Mill’s view as, ‘Weak Rule Utilitarianism’ and argue that Mill allows that rules can sometimes be broken in unusual or extreme cases if a greater amount of happiness will result. 

Others use the term ‘Strong Rule Utilitarianism’ for this approach and establish the principle that never breaking a rule established by the principle of utilitarianism is how Utilitarianism should work.

QUOTE BANK!!

Mill: “...some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.”

Mill: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied.”

Mill: “... no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base.”

Mill: “All action is for the sake of some end...”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Situation Ethics: Fletcher and Agape

-
Fletcher, influenced by earlier moral theologians, advocated a ‘new’ approach to Christian ethics between the two extremes of legalism and antinomianism. His solution was that we should always use the principle of love or agape (selfless love) applied to each unique situation, meaning that ‘right’ decision in one circumstance cannot be a blueprint for all circumstances. Fletcher considered his teachings as firmly grounded in ‘classical’ Christianity, a key text being Mark 2:27: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", indicating for Fletcher that the practical application of Christian love (agape) involved a more flexible approach to rules. For Fletcher, ‘absolute’ principles of right and good are not realistic; they became problematic if applied blindly without considering specific situations. He quotes Henry Miller's reference to legalism as ‘the immorality of morality’.  Fletcher argued that the Church’s legalistic approach that used ‘prefabricated rule...
Read more

Utilitarianism: Application

-
The use of animals for medical research Often, the principle of utility (or the ‘greatest happiness principle) is used to argue that human happiness in the long-term outweighs the suffering of animal experimentation. However, such philosophers as Peter Singer says we should have a rule against causing harm or suffering to any sentient being. However, the purpose of animal experiment should be considered; medical research after all, is more noble than cosmetic safety tests. The sheer numbers benefitting from successful treatments or controlling epidemics over against the amount of pain caused for animals is justification enough. Whether one uses Bentham or Mill is another variant. The above arguments would certainly support Mill; however, Jeremy Bentham argued famously, ‘the question is not, can they reason? Not, can they talk? But can they suffer?’ and indeed was an active campaigner for animal rights. Another point to consider is that any conclusion reached on for this area is difficu...
Read more

Irenaean type Theodicies

-
Irenaeus, like Augustine, did not have a systematic theodicy; unlike Augustine, Irenaeus presents God as responsible for the possibility of the existence of evil. This was deliberate because God wanted human beings to develop the qualities that would make them spiritually perfect. Crucial for Irenaean type theodicies is the first part of Genesis 1:26: ‘Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.”’ For Irenaeus, human beings were created with partial maturity, but the potential to develop and grow into the image and likeness of God. Thus, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden not because they were perfect and then sinned, but because they were immature. Hick Medieval theologians, and in last century the theologian John Hick, made an analogical distinction between ‘image’ (possessing the potential qualities of God’s spiritual perfection) and ‘likeness’ (actualising those qualities). John Hick disliked a literal reading of Genesis; instead h...
Read more