Middlemarch Text and John Stuart

Middlemarch Text And John Stuart Mills Theory on Utilitarianism

Middlemarch and Utilitarianism

Mary Garth from George Eliot's Middlemarch is a kind and upright person, who follows closely her own moral principles. When Mary is confronted with the difficult decision that Mr. Featherstone presents her with, she does not waver and refuses to touch the old man's money or his testament. Her action is all the more significant because of the complex background of the old man's death. An avaricious person, weak and heartless, the old man attempts vainly to persuade Mary into taking all his money and burning his testaments so as to make sure his family is excluded from gaining anything after his death. This situation scales human dignity and the price of human life and that of material possessions at the same time. What is interesting is the fact that Mary is not even tempted by the fortune and flees the old man's advancements with the greatest determination. Her reaction is eloquent precisely because she seems to discard her own interest and happiness and to act completely disinterested for the sake of respecting her moral principles. From another point-of-view however, Mary does act in her own interest or at least she acts so as to reach personal happiness. This is explainable since it can be argued that the immoral act of taking advantage of the old man's death would have constituted an impediment in Mary's happiness.

I think that, in a similar situation, I would be bound to act in the same way as Mary. The main reason would be that any immoral act would affect my personal happiness and comfort. Moreover, people act disinterested not necessarily because they follow the only principle of happiness, but for virtue in itself also. Virtue can well be an end in itself, since it is a necessary ingredient in what is usually termed by people as happiness. I would make my decision based on my personal comfort in this case, since the others' interest is not to be taken into consideration here.

Utilitarianism proposed that men only act so as to pursue or maintain their personal happiness. The philosophy was often condemned as an immoral doctrine which preached pleasure and self-interest as the only principles guiding human action. Its detractors argue that the philosophy discards the higher and more virtuous feelings that animate a human being, assuming that a man pursues nothing else than what is useful to himself and to his own good. However, there is certainly one aspect of utilitarianism which is cogent enough: every action of a person does in some way concern the agent's well being. If Mary had taken the money, she would have revealed a different character, one which is easily satisfied through material means. Since she did not take the money, the direct implication is that her immediate interest was to be morally satisfied. According to the principles of act utilitarianism, all the human beings should act in whatever way required by a certain situation so as to be happy. However, if Mary were to act strictly according to the circumstances, it is not directly obvious that she would refuse the money. Thus, if she regarded only her direct happiness or the shortest way to reach it she would have probably taken the money and preferred the material satisfaction over other consideration. This is obvious since act utilitarianism emphasizes the necessity to behave according to each circumstance.

The other version of utilitarianism is rule utilitarianism, a form of this philosophy which assumes that a person always follows the same rules or the same pattern of behavior so as to be happy. Thus, it results that a person always acts virtuous, no matter the situation, and does not waver according to circumstance. In this case, Mary would have acted precisely as she did, that is, pursuing her personal happiness and acting according to a pattern she had established before, that of being virtuous and always acting morally. In this case, the decision is plain and easy to take: Mary has to be virtuous so as to satisfy her own moral demands and ensure her emotional and spiritual comfort. Thus, she acts according to her pre-established set of rules.

Thus, Mary acts primarily, as she herself argues, so as not to 'soil' the beginning of her life. She feels that taking the money would save the old man because his own happiness and personal interest would be in giving the money away to anyone else besides his family: "I will not let the close of your life soil the beginning of mine. I will not touch your iron chest or your will."(Eliot, 411) Mary's remark is thus very pertinent because she keenly observes her own satisfaction in this case would also mean that the old man would not get his own interest. According to my pre-theoretical judgment, I would have acted as Mary did, since that would have also accorded to my standards and my principles. In act utilitarianism, the agent follows the immediate prospect of his happiness which may vary according to the circumstances. This makes the individual be less virtuous and more likely to pursue immediate, self-interested pleasure: "The same may be said of the majority of the great objects of human life -- power, for example, or fame; except that to each of these there is a certain amount of immediate pleasure annexed, which has at least the semblance of being naturally inherent in them."(Mill, 55)

According to the doctrine of rule utilitarianism, Mary would have acted the way she did because she follows her personal interest in standing by her model of action. She refuses the money and behaves morally and virtuously, a pattern that she always pursues in her actions. Thus, it is obvious that rule utilitarianism is the most pertinent form of utilitarianism, and the one that seems to agree the most with the idea that people do not pursue strictly their pleasure but each of the virtues or pleasures as a means in itself: "The principle of utility does not mean that any given pleasure, as music, for instance, or any given exemption from pain, as for example, health, are to be looked upon as means to a collective something termed happiness, and to be desired on that account. They are desired and desirable in and for themselves..."(Mill, 54)