Mill argues that the principle of utility - which states that actions are right based on their ability to promote happiness - is the foundation of morality. He acknowledges this cannot be formally proven. Instead, he gives reasons to believe it is true based on empirical observations: people desire happiness and seek pleasure. He also argues we should give equal consideration to everyone's happiness. While not a strict proof, Mill believes this inclination of reason is the best we can do to justify the principle of utility.

1. 1. Mill argues that pleasures differ not only quantitatively, but
also qualitatively. Explain the difference between the two and
why Mill makes this assertion. What does pleasure have to do
with morality? How does Mill say we determine which
pleasures are higher quality pleasures? (Hint: discuss role of
"competent judges"). Do you agree that seeking and promotion
of higher qualitative pleasures solves the "pig philosophy"
criticisms of earlier versions of hedonism?
2. Mill is an empiricist. What role does his empiricism play in
his moral theories? What differences result from this approach
as opposed to Kant's rationalist approach? Here you'll want to
contrast consequentialism with deontology as two distinct
approaches to theorizing about how humans should act all
things considered. Concrete illustrations will help your answer.
3. Mill offers a "proof" for the claim that the principle of utility
lies at the base or foundation of moral theory. Why does Mill
claim that this principle does not admit of formal proof but
rather he can only give us reasons that will incline our intellect
toward believing it's true? Explain thoroughly Mill's "proof"
for both parts of the principle of utility (the hedonism and
universalism parts-- hint: analogy and discrimination). What do
you think of his "proof"?
John Stuart Mill
Notice there is no “s” at the end of his name; he is not a cereal.
Mill: starts with speculation

2. Why has there been no agreement about the foundation of
ethics, even though it’s been discussed for years?
E.g.
Aristotle: Golden Mean
Kant: Categorical Imperative Test
Hobbes: human-made contract that aims at peace
Plato: harmony in soul and state
None of these seems generally acceptable; but without a solid
foundation we cannot be sure of any of our obligations.
** normative ethics justified by theoretical ethics
Mill
Hmm says Mill, despite the uncertainty among philosophers
about the ultimate principle, there is wide spread agreement
about what duties we actually have (generally speaking).
Help people in need
don’t lie
keep promises
There must be a guiding hand at play; one that is at work in all
of these theories that came before
This guiding hand is the principle of utility (greatest happiness
principle)
Utility/Consequences
Despite their statement otherwise, all philosophers (says Mill)
are really concerned with utility, happiness, consequences.
They all believe it, but they all went astray,

3. e.g., Kant: highest good is the good will; is rationalism led him
astray. He was confused about what happiness is and that is
why he rejected it (too lazy to do anything example) and he was
confused about consequences. (262)
Utility/Consequences
e.g., Aristotle: practiced teleology so was concerned with
consequences. Highest good is happiness but he, too, was
confused about what happiness is; he rejected pleasure as being
what happiness is–
Plato; highest good is well-being/contentment. But he was
misguided because he focused within and morality should focus
without–
Hobbes: highest good is one’s own happiness and we get that
by having a solidly run society aimed at peace.
Consequentialist; confused about happiness and human nature.
Mill; epistemology (like Hume)
FOUNDATIONALISM
THE GIVEN IS UTILITARIANISM OR THE PRINCIPLE OF
UTILITY
So, Mill must
1. explain and clarify the principle of utility and defend it
against objections that might have been made by these previous
philosophers and that were made against Bentham’s version. (3
ways to handle criticisms; reject criticism, accept criticism and
change view to accommodate it, accept criticism and give up

4. view.)
2. provide an argument for his theoretical claim that utility is
the foundation of duties.
Mill (NO S)
Like Bentham (empiricist); morality should be grounded in
empirical *(observable) fact.
We must observe what human beings are ultimately motivated
by and take this into account in our moral view.
VALUE JUDGMENTS ARE PRIOR TO MORAL JUDGMENTS;
FIND OUT WHAT PEOPLE VALUE AND YOU HAVE FOUND
THE FOUNDATION OF MORALITY (WHAT GROUNDS
MORALITY)
Mill (NO S)
What is right? What is wrong?
What is the highest good (summum bonum)
what is the foundation of morality?
For Mill, these questions are asking the same thing. The
highest good is whatever people seek as an end (ultimate end).
For human beings it is happiness because it is an observable
fact that we seek happiness which is seeking pleasure and
avoiding pain.
We desire happiness as an end. (hedonism)
All else is only a means to an end.
Mill (no S)

5. So actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness; by happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of
pain, by unhappiness pain and the privation of pleasure. (264)
hedonism part
So:
What is happiness exactly? Pleasure sure but what is pleasure?
Whose happiness counts? Mine, yours, future generations,
animals?
Considerations of objections
Mill establishes his view of utilitarianism (molds it, shapes it)
by considering objections that might be or have been made
against the view.
we will consider 5 objections
Through these he adds three important aspects to happiness that
separate him from Bentham
1. stoic element
2. regard for others
3. mental cultivation
And otherwise makes his view clearer
Objection 1 (264): Pig Objection
Objection: the pleasure principle turns people into pigs; a
doctrine worthy of swines.
Think: who might have made such a criticism?

6. Kant:
Aristotle:
Plato:
Objection 1: response
It is those who make this criticism that degrade humanity, for
they speak as if human beings are capable of pleasures only
swine are capable of– but we are capable of much more.
adds qualitative differences to Bentham’s quantitative (265)
Pushpin versus poetry
mental cultivation: any mind to which the fountains of
knowledge have been opened is capable of happiness.
Objection 1 response
competent judges (266)
better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied and if a
person believes otherwise it is because he hasn’t truly
experienced the other side. (265)
it takes more for a human being to be happy; higher pleasures
Competent judges: Issues
Analogy to Divine Command Theory (Ethyphro Question)
Is what is right, right because Gd commands it? Or Does Gd
command it because it is right?

7. is what is preferable, preferable because the competent judges
say so? Or do the competent judges prefer because it is
preferable?
Constitutive Versus Evidentiary/ objective versus relative
This will be important later when he talks about proof
Competent Judges
People who don’t prefer higher quality pleasures haven’t
practiced mental cultivation or haven’t been introduced to both
sides.
Or
Don’t have time
Get addicted
(266)
Objection2: utilitarianism is selfish
(271) the happiness that which forms the standard of the
utilitarian doctrine is not the agent’s own, but happiness of
everyone.
To do as one would do another; love your neighbor like yourself
(compare to Kant)
What about peoples’ propensity to selfishness?
Education/socilization
Adds: due regard for the interests of others
Objection 3: happiness can’t be the purpose of human life and

8. action
Kant: we have no idea how to be happy let alone how to make
others’ happy. If the end of moral action was to create
happiness, we would have been given the constitution to obtain
it. (267)
Mill: stoic element
Objection 4: this standard is too high
We cannot expect people to always be thinking of the happiness
of everyone each time they act (271)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC4FnfNKwUo
Answer: separate motive from rule of action (opposite of Kant)
A standard of morals tells us what our duties are; but no system
of ethics should require that we do things from a certain motive.
e.g., tattoo case; drowning case; dog case
Objection 5: no time to calculate
There is no time to calculate the consequences of each choice
every time we are faced with a decision. (275)
Rules of thumb, experience and experience of others
Rule vs. Act Utilitarianism

9. John Stuart Mill
“Proof” for the principle of utility
Review
mental cultivation gets added due to pig criticism
stoic element gets added due to criticism that we cannot be or
don’t know how to be happy.
due regard for the interests of others gets added by the
criticism that utilitarianism is selfish
Utilitarianism: do that act which among your choices results in
the greatest good (happiness/pleasure) for the greatest amount
of people.
Two parts to this principle
1. hedonism: pleasure and only pleasure (happiness) is
intrinsically good (good as an end)
2. non-egoism/universal part: everyone’s happiness counts
Can there be a REAL proof?
Strictly speaking no.
Remember the structure:
Duties:

10. Foundation/given: principle of utility
** THE FOUNDATION IS THE GIVEN: NOTHING UNDER
SO SUPPORT IT.
“proof”
this is why we put “proof” in quotes– it is not a genuine proof.
Rather Mill thinks he is giving us good reasons to believe that
this is the foundation of morality.
Like our sense experience gives us good reason to believe that
we see red. (Hume)
“proof”
Three parts to the argument:
Factual claim: people do, in fact, desire happiness (go for
pleasure/avoid pain).
hedonism: Happiness is desirable for persons.
(move from is to ought: hard to do)
Happiness is desirable for the aggregate of persons.
From hedonism thedonism.
1. Factual claim
People do, in fact, seek their own happiness; they are moved to
gain pleasure and avoid pain.

11. Epistemology: empiricism
all knowledge, including moral knowledge, is to be grounded in
empirical fact.
it is obvious based on observation that this is a correct
assessment of what people desire.
So fact: each person, insofar as they are rational, desires his/her
own happiness
criticism of factual claim
There are other ends: people do, in fact, desire things as ends
other than happiness.
For example: friendship
Mill’s response: happiness is not linear, it is circular
With experience, these other goods become part of the end of
happiness/pleasure. Thus, it feels like we desire them for their
own sake—they become so as they become part of our very
understanding of happiness.
In this sense, the relationship between these other goods and
happiness is constitutive.
Obtaining knowledge is good because it leads to happiness has
a different picture.
2. The move from is to ought
Mill must argue for the move from the FACT that people desire

12. happiness to the claim that happiness is desirable. (intrinsically
desirable)
move from fact to hedonism.
uses an analogical argument
2. analogy
Analogy to the GIVEN in foundationalist theories of knowledge
(Hume)
The only proof that something is visible is that I see it.
Likewise, the only proof that something is desirable is that
people desire it.
X is desired/X is desirable
X is visible/X is seen
analogy
weakness of analogy; only as strong as the similarities
could criticize:
A. sight and desire are not the same. Visible means able to be
seen. Desirable does not mean can be or able to be desired; it
means good if it were desired.
e.g., I desire heroine, therefore heroine is desirable
e.g., a strong constitution is desirable, that doesn’t mean that
people desire it. We mean it would be good if people desire it.

13. Argument for Hedonism: ought from is
this shows it is hard to move from is to ought
Mill wants to make this move: x is desired so x is desirable but
it hardly follows from the fact that people are motivated to do X
that it is good that they do so or that they ought to do so
Criticism: response
Mill would argue this is not intended to be a proof but rather
give us good reasons to believe the claims
Provide considerations that incline the intellect toward
accepting the principle or seeing its merit
We could argue that even though we are, in fact, ultimately
motivated by happiness, we ought to pursue other goods. But
that would be to say we would never to motivated to pursue
those goods. So we have no chance of being moral. (ought
implies can)
not quite what Plato said– we can change and grow
Step 3: move from hedonism to universalism
From: happiness is desirable for each person
To: the general happiness is desirable for the aggregate of
persons
This move is made by appeal to discrimination
Equal Protection under the Law:
NO DISCRIMINATION WITHOUT LEGITIMATE
DIFFERENCES

14. CRITICISM OF THIS THIRD MOVE
do we NEVER have reason to put ’s happiness above any other
person’s?
is there ever any legitimate difference? Rawls (a Kantian) says
yes.
(although so might a utilitarian: consider motive claim) our
natural motives to put our own children’s happiness above
others results in the greatest good if everyone else acts on their
natural motives too.