Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Utilitarianism
    Utilitarianism
    Utilitarianism
    Ebook106 pages1 hour

    Utilitarianism

    By John Stuart Mill

    4/5

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview

    About this ebook

    The philosophy of utilitarianism can trace its origins back thousands of years to the ancient Chinese philosophy of logic attributed to the Mohist School. Today it is most famously associated with the 18th century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, and his disciple John Stuart Mill. The basic principle of utilitarianism is that one’s actions should be guided towards outcomes that create the greatest good for the greatest numbers of people, or in other words towards the maximization of utility, or happiness. This simple guiding principle creates a host of challenging moral dilemmas. Arguably one of the most important political thinkers of the modern era, John Stuart’s Mill’s influence on Western civilization cannot be overstated. In his classic exposition “Utilitarianism”, first published as a series of three articles in “Fraser’s Magazine” in 1861, we are provided great insight into John Stuart Mill’s philosophical world view. This includes a biographical afterword.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherDigireads.com Publishing
    Release dateDec 26, 2017
    ISBN9781420956603

    Read more from John Stuart Mill

    Related to Utilitarianism

    Related ebooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Where Uniqueness Lies: The ultimate treasure hunt for the key in our brains that unlocks our difference.

      Apr 29, 2013

      If you dropped a dozen human toddlers on a beautiful Polynesian island with shelter and enough to eat, but no computers, no cell phones, and no metal tools, would they grow up to be like humans we recognize or like other primates? Would they invent l

      5 min read

    • Article

      How Really Free Are We?

      Mar 27, 2018

      How Really Free Are We?
      7 min read

    • Article

      Absolute CERTAINTY

      Jun 6, 2022

      Absolute CERTAINTY
      5 min read

    • Article

      Are We Cut Out for Universal Morality?

      May 26, 2021

      Footage of a mob storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to subvert the legal and peaceful transfer of power, filled many of us with horror. Underlying that response was our indignation at the brazen violation of central democratic institu

      13 min read

    • Article

      On Purpose

      Aug 10, 2020

      Before we delve into your ideas about free will, I think it would be helpful to clear up a few common misconceptions people often have about what philosophers are referring to when it comes to free will. Would you mind explaining what ‘free will’ mea

      19 min read

    • Article

      The Search For Answers

      May 29, 2020

      The Search For Answers
      8 min read

    • Article

      Changing Minds

      Oct 28, 2019

      Changing Minds
      5 min read

    • Article

      Can Science Hold All The Answers?

      Oct 27, 2022

      MEASURABILITY, REPRODUCIBILITY, independent verification, accurate predictions — these are the criteria that have elevated scientific experimentation to the arbiter of truth in modern society. Besides the long and impressive history of accomplishment

      6 min read

    • Article

      The Search For Answers

      Apr 30, 2020

      The Search For Answers
      12 min read

    • Article

      To Seek A New World

      Aug 29, 2018

      To Seek A New World
      8 min read

    • Article

      Yes, Determinists, There Is Free Will

      May 16, 2019

      It’s not just in politics where otherwise smart people consistently talk past one another. People debating whether humans have free will also have this tendency. Neuroscientist and free-will skeptic Sam Harris has dueled philosopher and free-will def

      10 min read

    • Article

      Duty And Loyalty

      Mar 28, 2019

      Duty And Loyalty
      5 min read

    • Article

      Google Isn’t Grad School

      Jul 6, 2023

      Google Isn’t Grad School
      4 min read

    • Article

      The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

      Sep 9, 2020

      Most of us, most of the time, think and act as though there are facts about good and bad, right and wrong. We think the predatory behavior of Jeffrey Epstein was abhorrent, and that the political actions of Mahatma Gandhi were admirable. Moreover, we

      9 min read

    • Article

      Conflicting Views

      Sep 25, 2023

      Conflicting Views
      4 min read

    • Article

      Why Science Needs Metaphysics: Science can’t tell us whether science explains everything.

      Oct 1, 2015

      Technology cannot keep pace with theoretical predictions about subatomic reality coming from physics. The same applies to our ability to observe the far reaches of the universe. Theory outstrips data and can become more extravagant with the claims it

      6 min read

    • Article

      What Is Pseudoscience?

      May 8, 2017

      What Is Pseudoscience?
      3 min read

    • Article

      Beyond Originalism

      Mar 31, 2020

      Beyond Originalism
      9 min read

    • Article

      The Worth of Wild Ideas

      Sep 27, 2023

      Earlier this month, the consciousness science community erupted into chaos. An open letter, signed by 124 researchers—some specializing in consciousness and others not—made the provocative claim that one of the most widely discussed theories in the f

      7 min read

    • Article

      Staring At The Shadows

      Nov 7, 2020

      Staring At The Shadows
      4 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Utilitarianism

    4/5

    5 ratings6 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 2/5
      Okay, I'm not sure what to say about this. It's like milk; it's good for you, but can leave you bloated and gassy and the cover is totally uninspiring. Most of the writing is equally uninspiring. I recommend 2 minutes of Utilitarianism followed by 20 minutes of Googling gossipy facts about Mill.
    • 4/5
      Okay, so in one way Utilitarianism is the manifesto, the ludicrous 19th-century positivist lego castle where Mill tries - as-fucking-if - to construct his expediency argument from first principles, and On Liberty is where he gets real with you, like "but of course in the actual non-theoretical world it's more like-a this. Minority rights." But on the other hand, there's this: "The truths which are ultimately accepted as the first principles of a science, are really the last results of metaphysical analysis, practised on the elementary notions with which the science is conversant; and their relation to the science is not that of foundations to an edifice, but of roots to a tree, which may perform their office equally well though they be never dug down to and exposed to light."Oooooooooh. What an amazingly utilitarian approach to theory and the foundations of knowledge in your utilitarianism book, John. This essay puts its own discomfort with isms aside in the name of a systematic sanity that's probably the only kind that had a chance of going over with Mill's Victorian peers. It sure as shit isn't the last word in morals that it postures at being, but hey, man: Do something that leads to an increase of pleasure and a decrease of pain in your world today. You won't be sorry. Hug a seal.
    • 5/5
      The trouble with Mill is that you if read a few of his then-contemporary critics, and then you think you have his measure with all your modern day access to knowledge, but all along he was throwing "mind grenades" set on "delay" and they sit in your head while you go on thinking you are rather smart. So Mill mentions the Stoics and how virtue is only a means to happiness and that there are other things, too. He mentions the Sophists and how Socrates (allegedly) challenged their ancient equivalent of what is happening in higher education today. But in mentioning the development of utilitarianism from Epicurus to Bentham (and unfortunately I have not read Bentham cover-to-cover as I will do in the future), so just when I think to myself: "Mill, you really are 'drawing a long bow here' [a favourite saying of one of my favourite professors]", the mind grenade goes off and my hubris is dashed and I am glad I didn't say it out loud but there you have it - it was certainly there. There is no mention of Aristotle and the "golden mean" and how achieving a mean across the spectrum of virtues achieves happiness, but, as Mill says, there are many things that amount to happiness in addition to leading a virtuous life, so bringing up Aristotle doesn't make a good deal of sense. One interesting aspect of the essay is the long note in the last few pages where Mill extends a good deal of courtesy to Herbert Spencer, someone I have read more about in Jack London's Martin Eden than I ever did in all the other secondary sources I have read put together. While Mill does not quite agree with Spencer, Spencer claims (according to Mill) that he was never against the doctrine of utilitarianism. So the Greatest Happiness Principle it is but if we do not also take into account Mill's ideas of liberty (in On Liberty), then the present-day situation where we are told what to like and what will make us happy and many of us go along with that and eat our smashed avocado, living in our high density housing, and paying for cups of coffee that we could make at home for a fraction of the price, which are not only much better, but we could also be happier because we were actually doing something for ourselves, while, as Tolstoy or even my mother would say, "in reality", we are succumbing to the biggest scam ever and then wondering why we are not happy at all. And J.S. Mill says all this in just under 122 pages of thick paper dating from 1895, which is nice, but with each cover-to-cover completion of classic works I edge ever-closer to the abyss of what I don't know and it scares me.
    • 4/5
      Not my favorite of Mill's writings, but this one is definitely a bit more complex than the excerpts in textbooks would suggest. It is not a long read, and if not entertaining, it is at least well enough written to be readable without too much tedium. Mill does tend to repeat himself a lot, as do a lot of authors from his time, but it is interesting to see what ideas he promotes besides the notion of utilitarianism in this document.
    • 5/5
      Dense at some points, but an interesting read that's a perfect primer on the foundations of utilitarianism. If you're at all interested in the topics considered, particularly intersections of ideas of justice with utilitarian principles, I recommend this. Mill also gives an interesting look at perceptions and basis of the idea of "justice" that might be of interest to readers who aren't directly interested the utilitarian philosophy.
    • 4/5
      Mill's inspired attempt to rescue, revive, & update Bentham's raw Enlightenment utilitarianism. As fundamental to modern ethics as On Liberty is to modern political thought, Utilitarianism surely is a more controversial & flawed text. Notably, Mill's attempt to found "higher" vs "lower" forms of pleasure philosophically, essential to his entire project, is not just unconvincing; its thinness is conspicuously at odds with the robustness built into so much of his other work.

    Book preview

    Utilitarianism - John Stuart Mill

    cover.jpg

    UTILITARIANISM

    By JOHN STUART MILL

    Utilitarianism

    By John Stuart Mill

    Print ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-5659-7

    eBook ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-5660-3

    This edition copyright © 2017. Digireads.com Publishing.

    All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

    Cover Image: a detail of Statesmen No.141: Caricature of Mr. John Stuart Mill MP, by Leslie Ward, Vanity Fair, March, 29, 1873.

    Please visit www.digireads.com

    CONTENTS

    Chapter I.

    Chapter II.

    Chapter III.

    Chapter IV.

    Chapter V.

    Biographical Afterword

    Chapter I.

    GENERAL REMARKS.

    There are few circumstances among those which make up the present condition of human knowledge, more unlike what might have been expected, or more significant of the backward state in which speculation on the most important subjects still lingers, than the little progress which has been made in the decision of the controversy respecting the criterion of right and wrong. From the dawn of philosophy, the question concerning the summum bonum, or, what is the same thing, concerning the foundation of morality, has been accounted the main problem in speculative thought, has occupied the most gifted intellects, and divided them into sects and schools, carrying on a vigorous warfare against one another. And after more than two thousand years the same discussions continue, philosophers are still ranged under the same contending banners, and neither thinkers nor mankind at large seem nearer to being unanimous on the subject, than when the youth Socrates listened to the old Protagoras, and asserted (if Plato’s dialogue be grounded on a real conversation) the theory of utilitarianism against the popular morality of the so-called sophist.

    It is true that similar confusion and uncertainty, and in some cases similar discordance, exist respecting the first principles of all the sciences, not excepting that which is deemed the most certain of them, mathematics; without much impairing, generally indeed without impairing at all, the trustworthiness of the conclusions of those sciences. An apparent anomaly, the explanation of which is, that the detailed doctrines of a science are not usually deduced from, nor depend for their evidence upon, what are called its first principles. Were it not so, there would be no science more precarious, or whose conclusions were more insufficiently made out, than algebra; which derives none of its certainty from what are commonly taught to learners as its elements, since these, as laid down by some of its most eminent teachers, are as full of fictions as English law, and of mysteries as theology. The truths which are ultimately accepted as the first principles of a science, are really the last results of metaphysical analysis, practised on the elementary notions with which the science is conversant; and their relation to the science is not that of foundations to an edifice, but of roots to a tree, which may perform their office equally well though they be never dug down to and exposed to light. But though in science the particular truths precede the general theory, the contrary might be expected to be the case with a practical art, such as morals or legislation. All action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and colour from the end to which they are subservient. When we engage in a pursuit, a clear and precise conception of what we are pursuing would seem to be the first thing we need, instead of the last we are to look forward to. A test of right and wrong must be the means, one would think, of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and not a consequence of having already ascertained it.

    The difficulty is not avoided by having recourse to the popular theory of a natural faculty, a sense or instinct, informing us of right and wrong. For—besides that the existence of such a moral instinct is itself one of the matters in dispute—those believers in it who have any pretensions to philosophy, have been obliged to abandon the idea that it discerns what is right or wrong in the particular case in hand, as our other senses discern the sight or sound actually present. Our moral faculty, according to all those of its interpreters who are entitled to the name of thinkers, supplies us only with the general principles of moral judgments; it is a branch of our reason, not of our sensitive faculty; and must be looked to for the abstract doctrines of morality, not for perception of it in the concrete. The intuitive, no less than what may be termed the inductive, school of ethics, insists on the necessity of general laws. They both agree that the morality of an individual action is not a question of direct perception, but of the application of a law to an individual case. They recognise also, to a great extent, the same moral laws; but differ as to their evidence, and the source from which they derive their authority. According to the one opinion, the principles of morals are evident a priori, requiring nothing to command assent, except that the meaning of the terms be understood. According to the other doctrine, right and wrong, as well as truth and falsehood, are questions of observation and experience. But both hold equally that morality must be deduced from principles; and the intuitive school affirm as strongly as the inductive, that there is a science of morals. Yet they seldom attempt to make out a list of the a priori principles which are to serve as the premises of the science; still more rarely do they make any effort to reduce those various principles to one first principle, or common ground of obligation. They either assume the ordinary precepts of morals as of a priori authority, or they lay down as the common groundwork of those maxims, some generality much less obviously authoritative than the maxims themselves, and which has never succeeded in gaining popular acceptance. Yet to support their pretensions there ought either to be some one fundamental principle or law, at the root of all morality, or if there be several, there should be a determinate order of precedence among them; and the one principle, or the rule for deciding between the various principles when they conflict, ought to be self-evident.

    To inquire how far the bad effects of this deficiency have been mitigated in practice, or to what extent the moral beliefs of mankind have been vitiated or made uncertain by the absence of any distinct recognition of an ultimate standard, would imply a complete survey and criticism of past and present ethical doctrine. It would, however, be easy to show that whatever steadiness or consistency these moral beliefs have attained, has been mainly due to the tacit influence of a standard not recognised. Although the non-existence of an acknowledged first principle has made ethics not so much a guide as a consecration of men’s actual sentiments, still, as men’s sentiments, both of favour and of aversion, are greatly influenced by what they suppose to be the effects of things upon their happiness, the principle of utility, or as Bentham latterly called it, the greatest happiness principle, has had a large share in forming the moral doctrines even of those who most scornfully reject its authority. Nor is there any school of thought which refuses to admit that the influence of actions on happiness is a most material and even predominant consideration in many of the details of morals, however unwilling to acknowledge it as the fundamental principle of morality, and the source of moral obligation. I might go much further, and say that to all those a priori moralists who deem it necessary to argue at all, utilitarian arguments are indispensable. It is not my present purpose to criticise these thinkers; but I cannot help referring, for illustration, to a systematic treatise by one of the most illustrious of them, the Metaphysics of Ethics, by Kant. This remarkable man, whose system of thought will long remain one of the landmarks in the history of philosophical speculation, does, in the treatise in question, lay down an universal first principle as the origin and ground of moral obligation; it is this:—’So act, that the rule on which thou actest would admit of being adopted as a law by all rational beings.’ But when he begins to deduce from this precept any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct.

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1