Criticism and the Principles of Utility Theme Analysis

In Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill continually references his critics in an attempt to show that all other ethical systems ultimately rely on utilitarianism’s first principles: no matter how deeply they elaborate their moral values, at the end of the day all ethical theories see happiness and utility maximization as inherently good, thereby corroborating utilitarianism’s core idea. Non-utilitarians either use utilitarian principles to decide between competing moral values (for instance, when deciding whether stealing is permissible in order to save a life) or ultimately base their instincts about what is good and evil on the maximization of utility (for instance, by insisting that precisely those actions that maximize utility are just or correct). Mill shows that his critics—from skeptical laypeople to famous philosophers before him—are actually utilitarians themselves on a fundamental level. This allows him to circumvent arguments against his theory and further demonstrate that utilitarianism is the most logical, straightforward, and practically applicable moral philosophy.

Mill first takes up a number of objections to his theory in his second chapter, where he looks at his popular critics’ instinctual concerns about utilitarianism. According to Mill, these critics are not sophisticated philosophers offering competing ethical systems, but rather laypeople whose casual ethical judgments betray their misunderstanding of utilitarianism and whose instincts reveal that they ultimately agree with it. For instance, the most common objection against utilitarianism is the notion that “utility is opposed to pleasure,” when in fact utility refers to the maximization of pleasure. These critics instinctively know that pleasure is somehow connected to good and evil, but they reject Mill’s utilitarianism because they wrongly conflate his doctrine with the popular connotation of “utility” as pure functionality unconcerned with people’s feelings or desires. While they think they are attacking utilitarianism, Mill reveals, these critics are actually defending it. Similarly, later in the same chapter, Mill responds to the objection that utilitarianism would ask everyone to renounce their own happiness for the sake of others. He replies that, while self-sacrifice often leads to greater net happiness, it is not good in and of itself, since it is tragically wasteful to sacrifice oneself for the sake of nothing. Sacrifice is valuable because of what it achieves for other people—it would be pointless for everyone to self-sacrifice because there would be nobody left to enjoy the fruits of their sacrifice. So, the objection that utilitarianism implies sacrifice only makes sense because it relies on the principle of maximizing utility.

Mill’s final chapter, which interprets people’s moral instincts about justice, offers his most elaborate and powerful argument for utilitarianism’s superiority over other forms of ethical thought. Again, Mill’s central purpose is to show that, although people may initially worry that utilitarianism would tell them to ignore their moral instincts, in fact those instincts are correct—precisely because of utilitarian principles: societies maximize their citizens’ collective happiness by following their instincts about what is just and unjust. Specifically, while Mill’s critics think it would be wrong to calculate the consequences of each course of action instead of following their instincts about what is right, Mill thinks that their instincts almost always point to what is best for utility. This is because the consistent application of laws that “forbid [hu]mankind to hurt one another” is crucial to preserving public trust in institutions. For instance, while an illegal search of a suspected criminal might appear to minimize harm and maximize utility in the short term, in fact it erodes people’s sense of trust in society in the long term, and therefore it affects all people’s ability to live happy lives. Accordingly, instincts about justice point to how the consistent application of rules protects “the essentials of human well-being” and maximizes utility. The difference is that, whereas Mill’s detractors believe that justice is real—that is, a specific and absolute value that can be pinned down, understood, and used to reform society—Mill thinks that the principles people cite when they talk about justice and injustice are actually reflections of the more fundamental utilitarian principle of maximizing happiness.

Mill not only shows his contemporary political opponents that his utilitarian philosophy agrees with their ethical conclusions, but he also enters a far older and more wide-reaching debate. Mill demonstrates how other famous ethical theories, like Kant’s rule-based deontology and Aristotle’s theory of virtue ethics, ultimately have to appeal to utilitarian principles. Above all, Mill makes frequent implicit references to Kant. In short, Kant thought that morality needed to be based in a priori, universal principles that inherently applied to all human beings—but Mill argues that Kant had no “rule for deciding between [his] various principles when they conflict,” and could only settle such questions by looking at what was best for the greater good. Similarly, Mill responds to the other most prominent theory of ethics, the Aristotelian notion that personal virtue (or character) is the ultimate defining feature of good and evil. Mill argues that virtue is an important ingredient of a utilitarian philosophy, but not “good in itself.” Like justice, virtue is good only because it is a “means to the ultimate end” of happiness: people should be virtuous because the love of virtue is the mindset “most conducive to the general happiness.” Therefore, while Kant and Aristotle are usually correct about what is right and wrong, they simply miss the first principle behind their correct ethical instincts, just like all the less-sophisticated critics Mill answers in his second and final chapters. In this short book, then, Mill manages to answer not only the critics who worry that utilitarianism means endless self-sacrifice and the political thinkers who wonder what a seemingly case-by-case utilitarian philosophy would mean for societies whose justice systems are based in systems of blanket moral rules—but also the most respected moral philosophers in European history.