John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and Freedom Concepts
Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill
Utilitarianism is based on the principle articulated by Hutcheson: “The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.” This is the utilitarian principle. Happiness is pleasure, and its opposite is pain. Thus, pleasure can also be understood as the absence of pain. The theory of morality of utilitarianism posits that the ultimate goal is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. All desirable things are desirable for the pleasure inherent in them or as a means to promote pleasure. Mill’s teleological ethics seeks purpose. Utilitarianism is an ethic that states what is good is useful for being happy. It is a public ethic aimed at happiness through utility, defending a moral order based on desires and using practice as an evaluation criterion of reality. It is also an objectivist philosophy; what matters is not who one is but what one does. Practice (praxis) is possible because it avoids subjectivism (who one is). Bentham said each counts for one and only one. There are ethical critiques of utilitarianism, advocating for other purposes than Mill’s. However, the ultimate goal of any ethic is always pleasure.
Characteristics of Utilitarian Ethics
- Teleological: Actions are valued for their purpose (being happy).
- Consequentialist: Well-being must be evaluated by its consequences.
- Prudential: The first condition for happiness is social prudence.
- Aggregative: The amount of pleasure is calculated to determine the overall pleasure in society.
- Not without a supreme good (B. Williams).
- Minimum commitment, just the beginning as a condition of utilitarian ethics (B. Williams).
- Calculation of empirical consequences of each act, quantitative rating (B. Williams).
- Currency and altruistic, one has to worry more for the happiness of others.
Mill’s defense of rule utilitarianism: Laws must be impartial; moral rules should translate into actions that provide useful happiness. Principle of Harm by JS Mill: The only reason a man or group can act on another is to protect themselves. One can only intervene and prosecute the action of another to prevent harm to oneself or others. Here, Mill separates actions that affect oneself from those that affect others. It is a fine separation that depends on the degree of freedom of individuals.
Problems with Utilitarian Ethics
- Objectivism Problem: If there is an external, objective, and transcendental motivation (penalty) to perform an act, it is easier than if the sanction is subjective and based on human consciousness.
- Naturalistic Fallacy: Mill states that happiness is the ultimate goal, which is a fact (everyone seeks it). Mill falls into the naturalistic fallacy by defining good as associated with happiness. There are personal good (personal happiness) and the general good (social happiness). Moore says the Good is indefinable. Everyone makes their own way.
- Mill assumes everyone will seek their happiness and that of others.
- Intuitionism Problem: Sidgwick says the principle of utility is unprovable and must be applied through intuition.
- Virtue Problem: Critics of utilitarianism argue that virtue is another possible goal. Mill says it is an ingredient of happiness.
Mill’s Utilitarianism is Eudemonistic (seeking happiness), Qualified Hedonistic (seeking refined pleasure), and Universalist Hedonistic and Social (takes others into account).
On Freedom
In this work, Mill regulates the dealings between society and the individual regarding freedom and society’s right to interfere in individual actions. Mill distinguishes two types of actions: self-regarding actions (public sphere) and other-regarding actions (private sphere). The former are free from societal interference as they only affect oneself. The latter affect society and are subject to legal and social regulation. The barrier between the two is a fine demarcation and can be moved. The larger the public sphere, the smaller the private sphere, restricting individual freedom. Mill uses two concepts of liberty: negative and positive, depending on the context. Negative freedom is the freedom of action, the absence of coercion or constraint. Positive freedom is intrapersonal, free will. Mill studies negative freedom: the choice of action, freedom of thought, opinion, expression, association, and “forging the plan of our life.” In Chapter IV, Mill raises the limit of individual sovereignty and the authority of society. Mill does not believe in the contractualist theory (like Hume). There are areas of intersection between the two spheres. Mill sees three possible restrictions on individual freedom by society: Principle of Paternalism (limiting freedom for one’s own sake without consent), Principle of Morality (preventing “immoral” acts), and Principle of Harm (avoiding infringement of others’ rights). For Mill, the latter is the only legitimate principle. In other cases, society can use persuasion, unfavorable judgment, or prevention, but nothing more. Influenced by Alexis de Tocqueville’s concept of “mass society,” Mill is concerned about the depersonalizing, uniform, and coercive effects of society and public opinion. Mill sees the problem as a conflict between isolated, fragmented individuals and a powerful global society without intermediate groups like associations or communities. This philosophy of freedom does not conflict with the utilitarian principle (individual freedom vs. altruism). Mill’s utilitarianism states that the state holds both positions. Public Utility (PU) sees freedom as the greater good, the purpose of man. Freedom brings happiness; more freedom, more happiness. Man is seen as progressive, developed to the fullest by maximizing individual freedom and not coercion. This development is individuality, originality, freedom, and variety of situations. Individual development leads to better social development.