Mill's Qualitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism

Question 1

Higher and Lower Pleasures

Answer 1

-Mill thought the pleasures of the mind were superior to the physical pleasures as they were likely to last longer, and so give more pleasure
-Also claimed ‘quantity only’ approach not needed
-Pleasures of the mind=Higher pleasures
Pleasures of the body= lower pleasures
Argued humans would prefer the pleasures of the mind over body even if the pleasures of the body were more pleasurable.
-Suggested some pleasures are inherently better than others, someone who have experienced both would value higher pleasures more, even though they may be less pleasant
-Only those appreciating both type can claim which is better= ‘competent judges’

Question 2

Criticism and response of higher and lower pleasures

Answer 2

Criticism= Is it hedonistic utilitarianism anymore? Mills distinction- some pleasures can be ‘better’ even if they give less pleasure. Less pleasant, yet better seems we are no longer seeking to maximise pleasure
Response(Mill)= Could claim that Mill is stating higher/lower pleasures are incommensurable, rather one being ‘less pleasant’ than the other- simply different. Claims even for lower pleasure/pains, can’t be measured side by side, need a ‘competent judge’ who has experience both- to see which is better/worse

Question 3

Mills ‘proof’ of the greatest happiness principle

Answer 3

Mill claimed that the ultimate principles of morality (like all first principles) cannot be proven, but facts/ reasons can be given for believing these principles
Proof=
1) The only evidence that something is visibility is that it can actually be seen
2)Similarly, the only evidence that something is desirable is that it’s actually desired
3) Each person desires their own happiness
4)Therefore, each person’s happiness is desirable
5) The general happiness is desirable
6)Each person’s happiness is good to that person
7)The general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons
8) Happiness is the only good

Final part of proof- Mill acknowledges that people do desire other things(virtue, money etc) as ends in themselves (not just as means for happiness). This is because, these things part of what happiness means to that person (they are form part of happiness), but this can only happen over time

• Eg for a baby money is just coloured paper, only through culture and socialisation we come to see money initially as a means to happiness, then as a constituent (forming) part of this happiness
• We should see happiness as the ultimate end

Question 4

Criticisms of the happiness principle- Equivocation

Answer 4

-Mill suggests the property of being ‘desirable’ is like the property of being ‘visible’. However, it can be argued that desirability is crucially different=
2 different meanings
1- a factual sense, meaning that which is able to be desired (could be anything, even morally questionable things)
2-A more moral sense, meaning that which ought to be desired
- 2 meanings can be seen by considering not everything that is desired (1) is desirable (2), can think of lots of gross things other people desire but we wouldn’t call desirable eg owning slaves
-Mill is using desired as 1 to suggest happiness is morally ‘desirable’ in 2.
Guilty of EQUIVOCATION (using a term with more than one term misleadingly)

Response- Could argue Mill is not trying to deduce that happiness is worthy of desire, as an empiricist believes only experience can tell us what is desirable, so we must look at what is desired

Question 5

Criticisms of the happiness principle- Fallacy of composition

Answer 5

• If each person wants their own happiness, it doesn’t follow that each of us also want the general happiness= fallacy of composition
• Eg each person might want to win the national lottery but each person doesn’t want everyone to win the lottery this week

Question 6

Criticisms of the happiness principle-Mystical being

Answer 6

• Mill claims general happiness is desirable to the aggregate of people, but the aggregate of people is not the sort of thing that has desires
• Response= Mill may not be claiming that mystical ‘aggregate’ desires the general good, rather if each of us thinks of happiness as good then from an impartial point of view, overall happiness is the good