Study Guide
Consequentialist theories of ethics evaluate the moral worth of actions in terms of their consequences. Accordingly, an action is right if its consequences are good; it's wrong if otherwise. Thus, it is right to keep your promise because its consequences are good; it is wrong to make a false promise because its consequence is bad.
Utilitarianism is perhaps the more well-known consequentialist theory. According to one of its key proponents, John Stuart Mill, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill labels this as the greatest happiness principle.
Mill offers the following argument for his version of utilitarianism:
The only thing that each of us desires is happiness.
Therefore, the ultimate end (and thus must be the basis of moral standards) is everyone's happiness.
It has already been pointed out that Mill's argument here is fallacious. Even if each of us desires the happiness, it does not follow that each of us desires the general happiness of everyone. Furthermore, even if we grant that we actually desire the happiness of everyone, it still does not follow that we ought to do so. Setting aside this issue for now, let us try to understand Mill's greatest happiness principle.
For Mill, our actions must promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But is Mill referring here to an actual action or just to the intent to perform the action? To action-types or individual action-tokens? What does Mill mean by "happiness"? Whose happiness is he talking about? What does Mill mean by the greatest "number"? Is it the total or the average happiness? Answering these questions would lead us to different theories of utilitarianism.
According to Act utilitarians, an action is morally right if it produces the best possible results in a specific situation. Accordingly, the greatest happiness principle must be applied on a case by case basis. The right action is the one that yields more happiness than other available actions in a given situation. Rule utilitarians, on the other hand, stresses the importance of moral rules and standards in assessing an action's moral worth. A specific action is morally right if it conforms to a justified moral rule. A moral rule, in turn, is justified if its inclusion into our moral code creates more happiness than other possible rules. Thus, Act utilitarians would evaluate action-tokens, while Rule utilitarians would evaluate instantiations of action-types.
For Mill, "happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure." We could think of pleasures and pains here as psychological states that we share with other animals, or we could think of them as economic gains or losses of utility. Even if we grant that they are psychological states, there is still a question among utilitarians whether we should only promote the quantity of happiness or should we also promote the quality of happiness.
Mill argues for the promotion not only of the quantity but also of the quality of happiness. In this regard, he distinguishes between lower and higher pleasures:
If I am asked what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.
Anyone who experiences both kinds of pleasures would always choose higher pleasures over lower ones. As Mill claims,
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.
Key Questions
How can we improve on Mill's argument for the greatest happiness principle?
Can you think of counterexamples to the greatest happiness principle?
Is torturing a terrorist to elicit information that would save millions of lives morally justified?
Suggested Readings and Materials
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The History of Utilitarianism
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Rule Consequentialism
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Marianne Talbot. A Romp through Ethics for Complete Beginners
