Philosophy
Explain Mill's argument in chapter two of Utilitarianism against telling a lie. Is his argument against lying consistent with his claim in chapter four that it is beneficial for people to believe that virtue is good in itself?
Mill claimed that it is expedient for a person to tell a lie in some circumstances as long as it will maximize total pleasure for oneself and other people (Mill 32). He based this line of reasoning from the fact that Utilitarianism is about the greatest happiness for the greatest number “to all mankind” and [] “whole sentient creation” (Mill 17). Mill gave an example that if there is an individual who will hurt you (that is, cause harm than good); then, it is a means to an end to be free from an imminent danger or pain.
Although Mill did not explicitly mentioned that telling a lie is good under all circumstances; instead, reiterated that it depends on circumstances, which are beyond one’s immediate control. He thus asserted the importance of virtues as means in the achievement of human satisfaction rather than its opposite. Mill gave an example wherein there are some people (e.g., martyrs) sacrifice themselves just to let other people not to experience the same noxious event of a moral predicament (Mill 22).
Mill is not of the opinion that in whatsoever contexts a person is in, he has to abide to the superiority of rule following or worshipping. Instead, he took a firm stand that the positive outcome of an event outweighs anything to the contrary. He kept on reminding his readers that what is good for a person/group is that a second principle (such as a virtuous character) is always subordinate to the first principle (e.g., happiness, pleasure, etc.). Hence, Mill is of the opinion that the “object of virtue” is the “multiplication of happiness” (Mill 27) such that it is a mean to an end, and not as ends in themselves, as compared to the net happiness for all people.
For Mill, any actions that are utility-maximizing should be given preference if it would mean the greatest good for most, if not all, people. If one has to lie, it is expected that it will bring a greater good. Without taking into account human frailties, it is hard to understand human nature in a realistic light (Mill 35). Mill had mentioned how some people, who have not intended beforehand to succumb to lesser good, had tended to be so because of circumstances beyond their control. Mill offered a down-to-earth analysis of what utilitarian is to its detractors considering that it has been viewed to be too unrealistic. For a utilitarian, a person’s action should be guided by the expected outcomes of his/her decision even under possible exceptions or limitations (Mill 32). Hence, utilitarianism does not mean taking into too much thought on various courses of action. Rather, expediency supersedes a principle if it the former will, in the end, maximize the total happiness of all concerned.
Mill’s argument in chapter two of Utilitarianism against telling a lie is consistent with his claim in chapter four – that is, that it is beneficial for people to believe that virtue is good in itself as long as it serves as a mean to the maximization of the net happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill has never been opposed to the status of “virtue as good in itself,” except for the fact that the consequences of an action define the consequent status of a virtue. Since a virtue is simply an estimation of a person’s character, trait and/or habit (Mill 28), the final test whether a good action is good is not the person per se, but whether his/her good character had resulted to good actions/outcomes (Mill 29). If this is not the case, then it is besides the point to continue arguing as to how important virtues are relative to the principle of utility.
In reiteration, a virtue is good in itself when “desired disinterestedly” (Mill 53) – and there is no doubt to it. On the other hand, if telling a lie is not virtue, but a vice, then, it is never good in itself because it is, apparently, a negation of honesty. Nevertheless, a reader of Mill’s Utilitarianism should understand that an in-depth analysis is required in order to better understand Mill’s conceptual analysis of the often-repeated word “expedient” as a necessary and sufficient condition for act utilitarianism. Under this type of utilitarianism, an action is good in itself as a person acts and looks into the best possible consequences as one desires the attainment of happiness for its own sake (Mill 55). Hence, when Mill wrote about virtues as good in themselves, he is simply ascribing secondary importance to them (Mill 37) as compared to common sense rule following (especially under rule utilitarianism).
There is really nothing inconsistent will Mill’s assertion concerning the expediency of telling a lie. He has only tried to refute some of the opponents of utilitarianism by stating some of the obvious exceptions under atypical circumstances. Mill did not advocate the use of a non-virtue for its own sake; rather, he maintained that there is a need to serve the interest of the most number of people even to the point of giving up one’s own self-interest to maximize pleasure, satisfaction, or happiness for all. There has never been any inkling that Mill deviated from the established assumptions of Utilitarianism such that “there is in reality nothing desired except happiness” (Mill 56).
As a final remark, Mill had been wary to present both sides of the issue such as in telling a lie and the status of virtues as being good in themselves. He had not been prejudicial in his essay on the topic because he even mentioned some of the refutations hurled against Utilitarianism by its opponents/detractor/assailants (Mill 8, 18-19, 24, 52). As such, it proves to the readers of Mill’s Utilitarianism that they should read his work with an open mind.
Works Cited
Mill, John S. Utilitarianism. 7th Edition. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1879. Web. 24 March 2013.
