A Comparative Analysis of John Stewart Mills and Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarian Philosophy and

Eat Dessert First

In this paper, I will be addressing the distinct ideas of Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mills. While not related by blood, this duo occupies the positions of father (Bentham) and “prodigal son” (Mills) of Utilitarianism. Where they tend to differ is with their descriptions of Hedonism, and yet by combining the two, a much stronger philosophy can be achieved.

Jeremy Bentham began his philosophy of Utilitarianism in the 19th century as a tool to decode morality. His goal was to develop a scientific method to accurately predict what is, or is not, moral. An integral piece of this belief is Hedonism; the idea that happiness is “necessary and sufficient” for a good life (class notes). Bentham argues that the only thing of intrinsic value is happiness. This means that the “goodness is self-contained, something valuable in its own right” (Shafer-Landau 23). On the contrary, pain is the only intrinsically invaluable thing in life. This reduces pain and pleasure to the same “life currency” (class notes). This is to be spent in balance with the objective being to always have more happiness than pain. The only ways in which happiness varies (as an individual act) is through intensity, duration, certainty, or remoteness. When considering a collection of acts, both purity and fecundity must also be examined. Bentham admits that these variables make it difficult to measure happiness and pain, however he believes that a general sense of this amount is all that is necessary to make an ethical decision (class notes). This can become tricky, as we must view our end amount of pleasure through both a short and long-term lens. Bentham’s Hedonism can seem fairly straight forward (just choose the option that maximizes pleasure), but there are also a few interesting issues that this philosophy has encountered.

One of the most evident issues with Bentham’s approach to Hedonism is that of evil pleasures. According to him, all pleasure is intrinsically good, and differs only in quantity. Often, people respond with abhorrence to the idea that someone could derive as much pleasure from community service as murder. If the pleasure outweighs the pain caused from the murder, it would be considered morally right. However, Hedonism has a response to this. Russ Schafer- Landau argues in his book that “happiness gained from evil deeds can improve our lives just as much as happiness that comes from virtue” (34). Under further reflection, this conclusion makes perfect sense. Those among us who consider themselves “good” are always lamenting the fact that evil can feel good too. This is highly prevalent in our society, manifesting in familiar phrases such as “good things happen to bad people” or “only the good die young”.

The illusion of happiness is another common disagreement with Bentham’s Hedonism. This occurs when happiness is achieved through an “optimal life undesired” (class notes). A fantastic example of this was provided by Dr. James Baillie, a professor at The University of Portland. He recalled a late night walking through the streets of Glasgow, where he encountered a gentleman whose brain had basically been fried by the overuse of acid. This man, on a cloudy night, was walking around proclaiming the beauty of the stars. Opponents of Bentham would say that this is not true happiness. This man’s euphoria, while constant and totally real for him, is caused through a disability of the brain. However, it can be said that he is perfectly happy with his current state of living. While we may look down upon his “happiness”, Bentham would say that it is genuine, and therefore the source of the pleasure is beside the point. Who is to say we would not be just as content in the same situation, free from worries?

John Stewart Mill, a family friend and devoted student to Jeremy Bentham, chose to follow in his mentor’s footsteps of happiness. Mill supports Bentham’s Utilitarian views on ethics, however he diverges from the quantity of pleasures, and prefers to seek quality. Mill argues that some pleasures are of a higher caliber than others, and require “intellect and refinement” (class notes). For example, Mill would argue that for some people, watching a Shakespearian production generates higher levels of happiness than a YouTube video of cats. He claims that it is “an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties” (Brink 2.2). By engaging our higher faculties, we are able to procure a more lasting and significant pleasure than mere observation. It then follows that human development may also be seen as intrinsic, disagreeing with Bentham’s insistence that only pleasure retains that title.

While he differs from Bentham in some regards, this does not allow Mill to escape criticism. Many would argue that Mill is, in fact, not even a true Hedonist. Due to his belief that human development has intrinsic value, he breaks the very definition of Hedonism: that pleasure should be humanity’s highest and only pursuit. This conclusion does not mean that Mill’s beliefs necessarily lose credibility or contain less truth, and they can still be applicable to Utilitarianism.

The Utilitarian “formula” is Consequentialism + Hedonism + impartiality (class notes). By changing to Mill’s version of “Hedonism”, Utilitarianism maintains all of its collective variables. The argument of partiality often plagues Mill’s approach, yet we can see that it only appears that he loses impartiality (a crucial component to Utilitarianism). Demonstrated through a Euthyphro-style dilemma, Mill must either conclude that:

Some pleasures are higher than others because judges prefer them or

Judges prefer some pleasures because they are higher

The first option would imply that the selection is impartial, and therefore Mill chooses the latter. This allows a higher criterion to be independently applied to accessing the “quality” of a pleasure.

Despite their slightly differing perspectives on the finer mechanics of Hedonism, both Bentham and Mill have strong ideas. While it is clear that Mill is not a true “Hedonist”, Utilitarians are doing themselves a disservice by discounting his ideas. When viewed concurrently, these ideas can help to embolden the Utilitarian philosophy. Bentham’s Hedonism, while strong, does not allow for the possibility of a more “refined” pleasure. By applying Mill’s theory to Utilitarianism, human development can be accounted for without losing the solidarity Bentham meticulously constructed.

It could be argued that the application of Mill’s theory to Bentham’s greatly complicates the process of determining right from wrong. However, this is not as negative as it initially sounds. By increasing the number of variables (i.e. the intrinsic value of development), the moral equation can be more exact as to the consequences of an action. As previously stated, Bentham himself admitted that this science does not require precise numbers to be inputted into a lengthy equation whenever a decision is to be made. A general idea of what is moral allows us to make more snap judgements. This also, conveniently, creates more routes for humanity in the long journey to happiness. For example, while going through a “rough time”, an impartial individual can reflect and realize that there current struggle (and therefore development) will increase their long-run pleasure.

Hedonism, and through it Utilitarianism, are philosophies that can be very difficult for some people to fully embrace. Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill embarked on a quest nearly 200 years ago to bring us a scientific answer to the question of right and wrong. By viewing their Hedonistic theories as two parts of a whole, the foundation of Utilitarianism can be fortified in a much more efficient manner. As the famous singer/song-writer Woody Allen once said, “You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred.”