John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism General Remarks

Utilitarianism

In the opening remarks to Utilitarianism, Mill sets the stage for this discussion. He accepts that the idea of utilitarianism dates back two thousand years, and is part of a philosophical discourse that has never been resolved. He then explains the prevailing thought that moral laws are considered universal, deriving from the same source. Their evidence is a priori in that they are simply assumed to be correct. These laws, however, lack a fundamental rule, something that is the root of morality, that should be self-evident. Mill is staking out a position that there is no such fundamental rule, and that this is a defect.

Mill then argues that utility, as described by Bentham, is where happiness derives from, and that this ultimately influences decision-making and morality even among those who reject the idea and attempt to base their moral standards on another universal code. Mill does not explicitly say in his preamble that the other standards are rooted in religion, but this is his underlying message, especially when he charges that there is no definable, underlying law on which morality can be based. He stakes out a position directly opposite Kant, a framing that we still use today, and notes that Kant "fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings the most outrageously immoral rule of conduct."

The final section of the opening remarks points out some of the difficulties even in utilitarianism, for example the idea that something is "good" can be difficult if not impossible to prove, noting examples of one's healthy, or music. In this way, Mill sets the stage for the rest of the book, setting the tone for the early discussion of what utilitarianism is and what it is not.

Mill's opening remarks highlight the philosophical divide between himself and Kant, in particular when Mill argues that Kant has provided little proof for his theories, and that even those who subscribe to the idea that moral goodness is the best way to make moral decisions are likely to utilize happiness as one of their most prominent decision-making tools. In this way, Mill makes the argument that utilitarianism is every bit as universal as the universal moral standards his opponents propose.

That those standards lack substance is a strong claim that Mill makes, especially as these standards are understood to have religious derivation. He is correct in pointing out that too often the idea of morality is nebulous, it is understood a priori, and yet that leaves it open to a tremendous amount of subjective interpretation. That it is open for interpretation ultimately leaves it open to happiness as one of the main factors in moral decision-making, though people who believe in moral decision-making never frame it that way.