J.S. Mill and the Diversity of Utilitarianism

Jacobson, Daniel

PDF
Share+
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Reddit
- Mendeley

J.S. Mill and the Diversity of Utilitarianism

Daniel Jacobson

June 2003, Volume 3, No. 2, pp. 1-18

Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0003.002

Permissions: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. Please contact [email protected] to use this work in a way not covered by the license.

For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.

Abstract

Mill's famous proportionality statement of the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) is commonly taken to specify his own moral theory. And the discussion in which GHP is embedded -- Chapter 2 of Utilitarianism -- predominates the interpretation of Mill's normative philosophy. Largely because of these suppositions, Mill is traditionally read as a particular kind of utilitarian: a maximizing act-consequentialist. This paper argues that the canonical status accorded to Utilitarianism is belied by the text itself, as well as by its historical context, and that this point largely undermines the orthodox interpretation of Mill. In fact, GHP was intended as the statement of a common creed, acceptable to the diverse class of philosophers Mill counted as utilitarian. Moreover, the discussion of substantive moral theory in Utilitarianism in several respects does not reflect his own view, and the work itself is much less important than it is almost universally taken to be -- though not, it turns out, by Mill himself.

- 150% +

image

« Prev

But what does it matter whether GHP is put forward as a common creed or a specific thesis, it might be asked, given that Mill identifies himself as a utilitarian and thus espouses the principle himself? The short answer is that a common creed must be stated broadly or vaguely enough to be embraced by any utilitarian. A longer and more adequate answer would explain how GHP has to be glossed in order for it to best illustrate Mill's view. I cannot elaborate on this here; instead, I want to focus on what Mill takes to constitute the single opinion definitive of utilitarianism. What counts as the adoption of utility as a standard, and of what exactly is it a standard? Although his terminology varies, the doctrine Mill typically refers to as the Principle of Utility (PU) is axiological, not moral. PU is the conclusion of the argument in Chapter 4: that all and only happiness is intrinsically good. Taken in context, though, the footnote to 2.1 clearly refers to utility as a standard of conduct—of right and wrong action. Indeed, Mill proceeds to specify the single opinion constitutive of utilitarianism as the creed that happiness is the foundation of morality . He has already indicated that there are various ways to apply this standard, all of which count as utilitarian; but he then offers the famous "proportionality" statement of the Greatest Happiness Principle.

« Prev Next »