Reaction to Utilitarianism
I was reading through Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, and I am completely torn on this book. While he produces many thought provoking ideas and postulates on morality and his purpose is good, it just fails because it does not apply to real world settings and makes too many assumptions on its standards of morality.
A couple parts stuck out.
The first: Mill makes the assumption that there are two different levels of existence, high and low, high being humans and low being the level of animals and beasts. He states that humans have a higher conception of happiness and therefore "higher" pleasures, i.e. those of the mind, are required for satisfication, while animals have lower conception and are content by survival. He makes a point to say that "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied then a swine satisfied".
This entire argument is pretty weak. Mills is making the assumption that first off, morality exists on a definite system, humans are superior morally to animals, and the more intelligent you are the more satisfied and "good" you become. There is no evidence to which weigh morality or gauge it on any sort of scale to say that our way of life is morally right and natural animalistic instincts are morally wrong. The argument for it is also fundamentally flawed because of the inherent bias. Supposing humans are morally superior to animals is also rather wrong. The basic needs and instincts for all living things, food, reproduction, basic survival is inherent in all sentient beings and is the easiest and most obvious basis for morality. good and evil is a construction of human society and is only found in unnatural human settings, there is no good and evil in the jungle. The basis for all sentient life is survival of the individual and survival of the species, what is unethical and immoral is instead these oddly human pursuits of greed, wealth, and indulgence, the so called "higher" forms of pleasure implied by mills. The whole commonly held concept of morality is so self indulgent and bigoted that I could write for pages on it but that could be a later journal i want to address another part of mills work.
The second:
Mill also states that a well cultivated mind, one exposed to knowledge, is the one of the only possible routes to a satisfied life. That the previously mentioned "high" pleasures are what makes humans satisfied. I don't believe it is possible to make such a wide assumption. Mill says that no educated man would wish to become a fool, but what of religion? What of those who choose ignorance over knowledge and live blissfully for it? A catholic farmer could live his life never acquiring any knowledge or pursuit of thought other than what he heard on sunday at church, he lived his life meeting his base needs of survival and died believing eternal bliss waited for him because he lived his life according to god's principles. This alone defeats what Mill was suggesting because not all happiness is derived so much from true knowledge or pursuits of the mind, but from one's conception of existence, purpose and private morality.
A couple parts stuck out.
The first: Mill makes the assumption that there are two different levels of existence, high and low, high being humans and low being the level of animals and beasts. He states that humans have a higher conception of happiness and therefore "higher" pleasures, i.e. those of the mind, are required for satisfication, while animals have lower conception and are content by survival. He makes a point to say that "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied then a swine satisfied".
This entire argument is pretty weak. Mills is making the assumption that first off, morality exists on a definite system, humans are superior morally to animals, and the more intelligent you are the more satisfied and "good" you become. There is no evidence to which weigh morality or gauge it on any sort of scale to say that our way of life is morally right and natural animalistic instincts are morally wrong. The argument for it is also fundamentally flawed because of the inherent bias. Supposing humans are morally superior to animals is also rather wrong. The basic needs and instincts for all living things, food, reproduction, basic survival is inherent in all sentient beings and is the easiest and most obvious basis for morality. good and evil is a construction of human society and is only found in unnatural human settings, there is no good and evil in the jungle. The basis for all sentient life is survival of the individual and survival of the species, what is unethical and immoral is instead these oddly human pursuits of greed, wealth, and indulgence, the so called "higher" forms of pleasure implied by mills. The whole commonly held concept of morality is so self indulgent and bigoted that I could write for pages on it but that could be a later journal i want to address another part of mills work.
The second:
Mill also states that a well cultivated mind, one exposed to knowledge, is the one of the only possible routes to a satisfied life. That the previously mentioned "high" pleasures are what makes humans satisfied. I don't believe it is possible to make such a wide assumption. Mill says that no educated man would wish to become a fool, but what of religion? What of those who choose ignorance over knowledge and live blissfully for it? A catholic farmer could live his life never acquiring any knowledge or pursuit of thought other than what he heard on sunday at church, he lived his life meeting his base needs of survival and died believing eternal bliss waited for him because he lived his life according to god's principles. This alone defeats what Mill was suggesting because not all happiness is derived so much from true knowledge or pursuits of the mind, but from one's conception of existence, purpose and private morality.