Mill and Ethics: Debate on ‘greatest Happiness Theory’

MILL AND ETHICS: DEBATE ON ‘GREATEST HAPPINESS THEORY’

        According to the Utilitarian Philosophy, actions are to be judged based solely on their consequences: One is good or bad depending upon the consequences received as a result. For instance, if someone steals something, and no one misses it, it is not wrong to steal it. Both are happy and therefore, no harm is perceived. When considered from the other side; thee harm principle is based on the idea that harming someone means making an action, which will result with unhappiness or dissatisfaction of the other. The main idea supported by Mill about utilitarianism is related to creation of the greatest good for majority of the people. In other words, Mill strongly believes that, good is something, which gives results aligned with pleasure, while on the other hand pain is nothing but pure evil since it is against pleasure. This is why, when his harm principle is considered, it is much easier to understand his main approach regarding happiness of people. Briefly here, it is explained by Mill that anytime people decide to weigh their actions on the bases of morality, the only criteria they need to check is whether that action was made aiming to maximize their pleasure or not. In other words, he suggests that in order to be happy, individual can do anything that seems right for him. However, for many people criticizing this view, considering the fact that some people’s happiness can result with the other’s unhappiness; all such situations might need to be overviewed.

        Despite being perfectly stated and path-breaking, the utilitarianism concept coined and supported by John Stuart Mill has been criticized from many aspects. Simply, his harm principle is based on the idea that an individual’s right to act freely ends by the limit, where it starts to harm another. This is why, he believes that only cases one individual has right to harm the other are the cases, when more people’s lives or welfare are at stake. While he gives so much importance in protecting people from harm, he also suggests the importance of pleasure maximization for the individuals. In Book II, Mill argues that “according to the Greatest Happiness Principle (…) the ultimate end (…) is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; (…)”

Bentham's ambition on the other hand, was to create a complete and unique utilitarian code of law. He did not only propose many reforms on various areas, but also he tried to determine the definition of an underlying moral principle so that these reforms should be based on. This philosophy of utilitarianism took for its "fundamental axiom", it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong". The "greatest happiness principle", or the principle of utility, forms the cornerstone of all Bentham's thought. By "happiness", he understood a predominance of "pleasure" over "pain". He wrote in The Principles of Morals and Legislation:

Regarding Mill’s ideas on utilitarianism, it might be easier to evaluate the following case. When it is assumed that in a state, the new policy is based on gratuity of healthcare for families who have at least 4 children, thus expecting a “rejuvenation” of society as a whole – more younger people, more workforce, more sustainability of pension, etc. Such policy might actually lead people to have more children and change their approaches against becoming parents however, when the policy is extended to apply more tax on single people (i.e. unmarried) – as a complementary measure to the previous on; it might turn into something that will create unpleased individuals. This is why, at that point, the question becomes whether it is related to harm principle or not. At the point, where overall society’s benefit is increasing, the new policy starts to harm the other ones (i.e. single ones) Bentham, on the other hand, proposed a classification of 12 pains and 14 pleasures, by which we might test the "happiness factor" of any action. Similarly, it might be assumed to apply penalty on people with known and highly heritable genetic disorders, who choose to procreate – the reason being to reduce the number of children born with genetic disorders, thus a society with less suffering.