This paper examines the Greatest Happiness Principle as developed by Jeremy Bentham and refined by John Stuart Mill, situating it within the broader tradition of Utilitarian ethical theory. It outlines Mill's key improvements over Bentham — including the distinction between higher and lower pleasures and the role of internal moral sanctions — before assessing the principle's real-world applicability through the example of the atomic bombing of Japan. The paper then turns to substantive criticisms, particularly those raised by Ruut Veenhoven, concerning the unpredictability of consequences, the encouragement of consumerism, and the potential justification of morally unacceptable practices such as mind control and dictatorship.
The paper models charitable reconstruction before critique: it first presents the strongest version of the Utilitarian argument — including Mill's sophisticated improvements over Bentham — before identifying its weaknesses. This approach is a hallmark of rigorous philosophical writing and prevents the paper from attacking a straw-man version of the theory.
The essay opens by defining the Greatest Happiness Principle, then traces the development from Bentham to Mill across two sections. A bridging section applies the principle to a real-world case study. The essay then pivots to critique, addressing both individual-level unpredictability (via Veenhoven) and broader social harms. The conclusion synthesizes these threads. The structure follows a classic expository-then-evaluative pattern suited to philosophical essays at the undergraduate level.
The Greatest Happiness Principle, developed by Utilitarian philosophers including Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, states that "actions are right only insofar as they tend to produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the largest number of people." Although it is the centerpiece of one of the best-known consequentialist ethical theories and has found useful practical application in certain circumstances, the principle suffers from serious pragmatic and ideological shortcomings.
John Stuart Mill, the 19th-century English philosopher, played a vital role in consolidating the Utilitarian theory originally introduced by Jeremy Bentham, establishing it as a major ethical theory of modern times. While defending Bentham's basic idea that the morality or immorality of an action depends on the extent of pleasure or pain it generates, Mill made significant improvements to the structure, meaning, and application of Utilitarian theory (Kemerling).
For example, Bentham had treated all forms of happiness as equal, whereas Mill made a distinction between intellectual or moral pleasures and more physical forms of pleasure, considering the former "superior" to the latter. To explain this difference, he famously wrote: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" (quoted in Fox).
Mill also endeavored to raise the Utilitarian ideal to a higher plane than the unqualified egoism or selfishness on which it was allegedly based. For instance, he disagreed with Bentham's premise that, while pursuing his own happiness, an individual is only prevented from harming others' interests by the external, socially imposed threat of punishment and blame.
Mill believed that human beings are also motivated by internal sanctions such as self-esteem, guilt, and conscience, and that they do possess an unselfish desire to do good for others. Consequently, the pleasure one derives from doing good for others — and the painful guilt one feels from doing wrong — are equally powerful motivators alongside purely self-interested impulses.
Despite the considerable improvement and sophistication Mill brought to Utilitarianism and the practical usefulness of the Greatest Happiness Principle, the theory still suffers from serious flaws. Its inability to account for the unpredictability of consequences, its potential to encourage selfishness, and its susceptibility to justifying extreme or harmful measures collectively undermine its claim to serve as a reliable and comprehensive guide to ethical action.
"John Stuart Mill." Great Philosophers. University Website, 2002. Accessed November 6, 2008. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Mill/mill.html
Fox, James. "Utilitarianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. Robert Appleton Company, New York, 1912. Accessed November 6, 2008. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15241c.htm
Kemerling, Garth. "Utilitarianism." Philosophy Pages. February 21, 2002. Accessed November 6, 2008. http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5q.htm#lib
Veenhoven, Ruut. "Happiness as an Aim in Public Policy: The Greatest Happiness Principle." Positive Psychology in Practice. Chapter 39. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New Jersey, 2004.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.