Introduction
One of the lingering questions in ethics is where morality is based on. To answer this question, many theories have been put forward, one of which is the concept of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a theory in ethics that posits that any action that maximizes utility the most is the one considered to be the most moral thing to do. Perhaps the most influential text regarding this topic is John Stuart’s Mill Utilitarianism. Here, he differentiates between animalistic pleasure and human pleasure; he argues that the two cannot be likened as humans have higher faculties. Furthermore, he defines a higher pleasure as one in which that would give a great satisfaction to the person involved, even it means acquiring some amount of discomfort as well. This is opposed to the lower pleasures in which animals possess, which exists primarily only to serve their basal needs and desires. However, I for one, do not believe that there are pleasures which are considered to be more desirable than others and I will critique it.
Body
With regards to the preference between higher and lower pleasures, Mill argues that as a rule, humans would prefer higher pleasures over lower ones. Per his words, “If one of two is, by those who are completely acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a great amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, In small amount.” (Mill, 1979, p. 48). In other words, it is the intrinsic nature of humans to seek out an action with a higher pleasure when presented with a choice, even though it would bring him or her some discontent in the process of pursuing it. Therefore, the degree of importance of a pleasure for a certain individual can be measured by his or her propensity to seek out that pleasure relative to other pleasures at hand.
In order to better understand Mill’s argument that humans will seek higher pleasures over the lower ones, it may be necessary to outline the argument described in the essay. Mill used the modus ponens syllogism to prove his point. In this type of statement, if a statement A implies B and A is true, then it can be said that B is true as well. When applied to Mill’s argument, Statement A would be “some pleasures are of greater value and bring about a greater satisfaction than others”. Thus, an implication of this statement would be considered as a statement B, in which “humans will by instinct choose the one which will bring about a greater pleasure”. In other words, if the argument that “some pleasures are more desirable” is true, then its implication, “higher pleasures are better than lower pleasures” is true as well.
The second premise is the implication of the first premise—it states that it is the tendency of humans to choose the higher pleasure when presented with a choice. After all, everyone would choose the action with pleasure they feel are equal to their lot; no one would choose a pleasure that is lower than they deserve except in instances of desperation. Based on this, it can be said that there are more pleasures required for a man of a higher value in order to feel happy. In other words, the pleasures needed by an individual is proportional to their lot in life.
In a modus ponens argument, if the first statement of an implication is deemed true, then the second statement is also assumed to be true as well. In this vein, if there are really pleasures which are more desirable than others, then it follows that people will choose the pleasures which are more desirable. This is because humans feel that they are better than animals, and so they would prefer the wants that would give them higher pleasures. If the first statement is considered correct, then Mill’s claim can be considered true as well.
Conclusion
Therefore, the best way to critique Mill’s argument is to attack the first statement itself—that there is indeed a hierarchy of pleasures. First off, pleasures cannot be measured numerically. It cannot be objectively said that a pleasure is more ‘desirable’; what is deemed desirable depends from person to person. Let us take for example, someone stealing in order for his family to make ends meet. Using Mill’s point of view, stealing is the most efficient way to derive pleasure as it is a way for their family to survive, which is deemed pleasurable in the long run. However, the act is still considered morally unethical in many circles. What Mill sees as the collective hierarchy of pleasures may not be applied to individual cases such as the situation outlined above.
References
Mill, J. S., & Sher, G. (1979). Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.
