Do you think John Stuart Mill is too optimistic
thinking that a refined utilitarianistic society could exist?
I do think that John Stuart Mill was indeed too
optimistic wanting to reform the behavior and character of society. The book
states that Mill asserts that, ultimately, utilitarianism rests on “the social
feelings of mankind; the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures.” (pg.
354). A key goal of his was to make as many people as happy as possible. He
believed that the main cause of unhappiness is selfishness. He wanted to create
an altruistic environment, which is the ability to encourage the welfare of
others, and that no person’s self-interest is more or less important than
another’s. The way he believed to attain a general happiness was through
universal education. For Mill, the use of education was to instill the skills
and knowledge needed for a person to live well and productively, and create
altruistic members of society. The job of these well intended people is to deal
with the root of society’s misfortunes that can be fixed or evaded.
The idea he had, in my opinion, is truly noble and
selfless, but how can you impose those ideals on everyone and think that is
what will change the core motivations of others. I feel as though he is almost a
little bit naïve thinking that people can be truly motivated only by helping
create a general happiness, and not their own first. How can you trust that
everyone has that same intention to apply reason and good will to their
actions? I think Jeremy Bentham’s egoistic foundation of social concern makes
more sense. Bentham claimed that psychological egoism, always being interested
chiefly in our own welfare, whether or not we admit it, is natural and
universal (pg.341). The care we place on things and other people is based on
how it or they affect our own happiness. He acknowledged that we motivated from
our own personal hedonism, and that pleasure is good and pain is bad. That we
try to maximize our pleasure and minimize our pain. He expanded on that and
added a general ethical obligation to it. Bentham thought if people could be
shown how a better society for others would cause less pain and more pleasure
for them, then a true social reform would happen. This innate self-interest
shows how our personal welfare cannot be separated from social welfare. The
correct role of the government is to make sure the enlightened self-interest of
each person is permitted to grow.
I think that Bentham is more than correct when he says
we operate essentially for ourselves. We want to know what is in it for us. The
textbook states that “Bentham declared that careful observation of actual
behavior makes it crystal clear that pain and pleasure shape all human
activity.” (pg.342). People’s motivations are reduced to what gives them
pleasure. People want to help themselves before helping others. The key to the
social reform he was looking for was motivating people to consider the welfare
of others, as well as their own. People must realize that helping society as a
whole can benefit them as an individual as well. Bentham wanted to show that
clear thinking selfishness could be seen as positive and used as an advantage
instead of seen as a bad quality to possess. His principle of utility, act
always to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, is a simpler
and more sensible utilitarian philosophy compared to Mill’s approach in my
opinion.
WORD COUNT: 591
