John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism

Procurement of greatest happiness to the greatest number of people appears like a definitive basis of utilitarianism propounded by John Stuart Mill. But the idea had been around for some time. In fact it was Socrates who first coined the phrase in slightly different context when he argued that the formation of states was meant not for "the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole." Similarly in 1725, Francis Hutcheson wrote something precisely to this effect in his "Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue" saying: "That action is best which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numb." This idea was later adopted by Mill and has since been associated with his utilitarian philosophy. Jeremy Bentham has also played a huge role in propagating the concept.

Whoever is the father of this phrase, the fact remains that it is an important philosophical concept and one that I agree with wholeheartedly but I am not certain from its usage in personal life. I do believe that government must take actions, which secures the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and must avoid actions that might cause harm to the majority and only benefit a small minority. But it comes to personal life, I find this concept hard to fathom or follow. Personal actions are often geared towards personal happiness of the person undertaking the action, it is not meant for others. I fully understand that when it comes to moral and ethical dilemmas, one must ensure that happiness of the majority is protected and enhanced. But in cases of personal choices and preferences, I find this concept rather vague.

This can best be explained by some real-life examples. If Katie wants to become a doctor and her mother, father and the entire extended family wants her to become a lawyer, whom should Katie listen to? Obviously if she followed Mill's philosophy, she would end up making many people happy but the most important person i.e. herself very unhappy. Personal happiness should not be compromised for the sake of greater happiness of maximum number of people when the one person who would be most affected by your decision is you. I feel that Mill's concept is workable when rights of other people are involved. For example Katie would not be hurting anyone's rights by choosing to become a doctor. But lets consider another example. Larry is in love with Susan while he is married to Anne. Susan wants Larry to seek divorce from his wife and abandon his three children in order to marry her. Though he doesn't love Anne anymore, they are both polite to each other. He often feels that his love for Susan grew out of boredom from his present marriage. Larry is utterly confused. He loves Susan but he is legally married to Anne and loves his children immensely. If Larry decides to marry Susan, he would definitely be hurting his kids as well as Anne. But if he decides to remain married to Anne, he might end up hurting himself in the long run. In this case, it would be ideal to take into consideration happiness of the greatest number of people. Even though this may appear like a matter of personal choice, it is not. In this case, rights of many people are involved. The rights of his first wife and their three children are just as important as Larry's right to choose and be happy. Mill's concept may help solve this dilemma.