Plato vs. Utilitarians: Conceptions of the Good Life

Introduction: Two Visions of the Good Life

Plato and the Utilitarians do not conceive of the good life in the same manner. Plato, through the character of Socrates, teaches that the true good life can only be attained by dedicating oneself to the pursuit of the one, the good, and the true — the universal transcendental values that, when possessed, make one pleasing to God. Thus, Socrates teaches his students that the way to happiness is to do the will of God, which he argues can be and must be objectively discernible. The Utilitarians, under the direction of the philosopher John Stuart Mill, however, view the good life in a much more subjective way. They hold that what is good is what makes one happy, and what is bad is what makes one unhappy. Pain is the dictator of what is good and bad: if something causes pain, it cannot be good, and if it causes happiness, it must be good.

Because such a rule is subjective — it is up to the individual person to decide, rather than an external standard to which all people can agree — it differs fundamentally in theory from Plato's conception of the good life. Plato says that to be happy one should respect and follow, ultimately, the will of God. The Utilitarians say the opposite: one should respect and follow one's own will, pursuing whatever is perceived to bring happiness. As Plato argues in the Euthyphro, there are many problems with such a view.

Plato's Objective Standard and the Euthyphro Problem

Mill (1859) himself wrote that his philosophy held actions to be "right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" — a view very similar to that of Plato's adversary in the Euthyphro. Euthyphro imagines he is in the right when he prosecutes his father for wrongdoing. But Socrates asks Euthyphro what piety is — what is pleasing to the gods — and Euthyphro can only give a subjective answer: piety is what he himself is doing. Socrates then observes that, by this logic, whatever Euthyphro does is good and therefore everyone should imitate him. Euthyphro recognizes the absurdity of this conclusion and is forced to rethink his answer. Yet rather than admit that he may be wrong in prosecuting his father, he chooses not to face the question and rushes off, secure in his ignorance and subjectivity.

Socrates, meanwhile, insists on an objective standard — a universal law that applies to everyone, not one law for Euthyphro and another for Socrates, with each individual determining what is right or wrong. Socrates argues that in such cases the individual sets himself up as judge, when in reality the true judge is God, for God alone stands above everything and is indeed the author of the truth written in human hearts.

Conclusion: Subjectivity, Self-Deception, and True Happiness

Euthyphro and the utilitarians want truth to submit to them. They want truth to conform to their own wills, rather than have to conform their wills to truth. A happiness founded on self-deceit will ultimately lead to a life that falls short of the one, the good, the true, and the beautiful. Failing to live according to those transcendental, universal truths — which are defined for one and all and require objectivity to discern — will in the end lead only to real unhappiness. Plato's vision, as expressed through Socrates, insists that genuine happiness cannot be self-legislated; it must be grounded in something beyond the individual will.

References

Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son, West Strand.