John Stuart Mill Lessons

¶ … Happiness

The author of this report has been asked to answer a specific and thoughtful answer to a question about the greatest happiness principle and what it really means. Indeed, the question is how the principle is supposed to be useful and informative when it comes to guiding someone on what to do, what not to do and why. As the author expected, there is a strong correlation between this question and the general concept of utilitarianism. While the linkage and comparison of the greatest happiness principle and utilitarianism may make it easy to some to offer some explanations and insights, it just complicates things for others in some ways and the author of this response is certainly among that echelon.

Analysis

Before getting into semantics and how the principle can or should be perceived, the author of this report will quote the man who came up with the principle being cited in this report, that being John Stewart Mill. His assertion was that "utility" and "greatest happiness" were one and the same. He asserted that the actions associated with either are the ones that "tend to promote happiness" and that the opposite are ones that "tend to produce the reverse of happiness." This was his "first formula" of the Greatest Happiness principle. The second formula of the principle was the idea that the Greatest Happiness Principle was the "existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments." However, there is a key qualifier and condition in the second formula and that is that happiness must be "secured to all mankind; and not to them only." In other words, happiness under the Principle must be realized and understood by all rather than just pleasure for one or only a few people. Of course, excluding the whole when it comes to pleasure is what many would term hedonism. While pleasure to only a few may not be seen as harm to the individual, there is not as much as happiness, in theory, as could or would be realized by the group as a whole (UTM).

Given all of that, the rules and guidelines that are useful in determining what one should or should not do are fairly straightforward. What should be done and why, basically, is based on how much good it brings to the whole. Indeed, if an action brings good or pleasure only to one person or a select few, that is generally not acceptable. This is especially true if there are other options that bring happiness to more people. For example, if there is a group of three hungry people and a limited pile of food for them to eat, one person getting to eat all they want brings good but only to one person. Allowing all three to share the food may not satiate all of them but it improves the outcomes for all three. As such, the latter would be the way to go. This is not to say that people should always be altruistic and completely non-selfish. There are situations where someone can enjoy themselves and have pleasure and have it not be at the expense of someone else. At the same time, there are ways to maximize the good for everyone. For example, Panera Bread and other restaurants make their goods so as to make a profit. However, they are going to have items that do not sell and that would normally go to waste. Rather than allow this to happen, they could give their items that are not saleable to the poor since it is just going to get thrown out anyway. If they did not do so, that is their right but they are certainly not maximizing happiness. They do need to make a profit to continue existing so requiring them to give all of their wares to the poor is not the outcome with the "greatest happiness" since Panera employees would be out of a job. However, Panera selling what they can and giving what's going to go to waste to the poor is a good and balance solution. In actuality, what the author just discussed is not just a random thought. Panera indeed gives away their unsold goods every day per their website (Panera).

The author of this response offered a bit of a hedge when it comes to how easy it is to come up with the best outcome. Indeed, there is some discord and disagreement about what burden people or companies have when it comes to bringing the greatest happiness. What is defined as utilitarian or sufficient when it comes to this principle is defined differently based on the worldview and perceptions of each person. Just as one example, Panera charging a ten percent markup (just to use a random number) may seem normal to some but may be seem excessive to others, for example. Others might say that Panera should make batches of food just to give to the poor and not just give them the scraps, so to speak. On the other side of that coin, however, Panera is a business and not a social service agency. As such, they are not (and should not be) mandated to give anything as making it compulsory takes the charity and compassion out of it. Indeed, that is the point. There are some that having differing views on what is truly utilitarian and just how far it should go. However, the beauty of free will and life in general is the ability of some people to give of themselves even if it is not required and even if they are not being brow-beaten by people that think they are better because they engage in such directives.