Notes and Study Questions for the selections from John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

(Wilcox and Wilcox, Applied Ethics, pp. 10-21)

In this selection, John Stuart Mill begins with a brief statement of the basic idea of utilitarianism and then attempts to clarify the meaning of the utilitarian theory of ethics by showing that a number of common objections to it are based on misunderstandings.

1. The first objection is addressed in pages 11-14. It is stated in the first paragraph beginning on p.11. Mill's reply hinges on a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Try to get clear on what sorts of pleasures Mill thinks are 'higher' and what sorts 'lower.' Try also to understand and evaluate the reasoning he uses to defend his way of drawing this distinction. (This involves developing the notion of a 'competent judge.') Do you think that Mill has shown that ‘hedonism’, properly understood, can avoid the difficulties Rachels discusses on pp. 103-105

2. Note that this section culminates in a more detailed statement of the utilitarian doctrine (in the paragraph that starts in the middle page 14).

3. Mill then turns to another objection: that it is nobler or more virtuous to learn to do without happiness. (The statement of this objection has been edited out, but we do get much of his reply on pp.14-16)

4. How does he respond to the objection that utilitarianism is too demanding (i.e., that it asks too much of us)? (Pp.16-17) (See Rachels, pp. 109-110 for an account of this objection.)

5. How does Mill answer the charge that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine? (P. 17)

6. How does he answer the charge that utilitarianism encourages people to do what is expedient, instead of acting on principle? (P. 18) (Rachels discusses this type of objection on pp.105-109.)

7. Notice Mill’s discussion of lying on p.18. This is meant to show that his theory does not license too much ‘flexibility’ in relation to traditional moral rules. Does his argument succeed?

8. How does Mill respond to the objection that his doctrine requires us to enter into impossibly lengthy calculations before we act? (Pp.18-20) Does his answer here show that he is a ‘rule-utilitarian’ and not an ‘act-utilitarian’? (See Rachels, pp. 112-114 for explanations of these terms.)

9. Note that Mill makes an important claim for his utilitarian principle on p.20: that it gives us a standard for deciding between conflicting moral obligations. This is a problem for any theory of ethics that relies on rules or principles (as we will see when we turn to Kant’s ethics). Do you think Mill’s solution is a good one?