The Utilitarian, John Stuart Mill

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