Stuart Mill on Pleasure and Utilitarianism

    Epeydir fikirlerini bu kadar içselleştirebildiğim, dile getirmek istediklerimi tam anlamıyla kelimelendirmiş bir filozof okumamıştım. Dostoyevski'nin Yer Altından Notları'ndaki karamsarlığını ne kadar ikna edici bulduysam, Mill'in farkındalığı böylesine pozitif resmetmesi de bir o kadar ikna edici geldi. How ironic! Mill'e inanmanın beni daha mutlu edeceğini bilsem de Dostoyevski'nin gerçekçiliği sahiden zehirli ve tesiri kolay kolay geçebilecek gibi durmuyor. Bakalım, gelecekte ne düşünneceğim. 

Critics of utilitarianism accuse utilitarians of portraying humankind in a derogatory manner. By grounding happiness and pleasure in the center of life, they simplify humans and even relegate them to unsophisticated beings. Mill responds to this objection by providing an explanation of what pleasures are, where he emphasizes the qualitative and quantitative types of pleasures.

Mill’s differentiation of pleasures points out that the higher the faculties of the mind are, the more sophisticated pleasures are required to satisfy. Mill portrays higher pleasures as qualitatively rich and the lower pleasures as quantitatively rich, accessible to many. He finds the idea that mental pleasures are superior to bodily pleasures because of greater permanency, safety, and uncostliness - circumstantial advantages rather than in their intrinsic nature” (122) - as a sound basis and proof for utilitarianism. However, while this argument may prove the superiority of mental pleasures, it does not necessarily explain whether people are unsophisticated creatures who are predisposed to pursue bodily pleasures. In response to this critique, Mill contends that the allure of bodily pleasures and ephemeral satisfactions are only enough for those who do not have access to intellectual pursuits, moral virtues, altruistic acts, etc. Thus, it is when an individual becomes cognizant of these higher pleasures and possesses the means to indulge in them, Mill asserts, that he or she will always prefer higher pleasures. Hence, Mill’s argument proposes a hierarchical distinction between pleasures, implying that people are innately predisposed to prefer higher pleasures, so long as they are accessible, which ultimately argues that although people may seek fleeting gratifications like a pig, only when they are devoid of the means to access any higher.

However, Mill’s distinction of pleasures could be too subjective. Mill proposes that competent judges are required to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures. These judges, as Mill remarks, are to be able to experience both types of pleasures. However, the validity and reliability of this differentiation may not be sound enough to dictate what is higher and what is not. The reason why Mill is putting forward such a solution could be that having experienced both kinds of pleasures, the judges must be in a better position to deem their relative value. However, this idea neglects many people, suggesting that only a few are equipped to be able to judge the value of pleasures. Even if this elitist approach is discounted, Mill postulates that when disagreements arise, the majority’s idea is to be accepted, which can ultimately promote the oppression of the majority.

Moreover, Mill’s argument about the compelling nature of higher pleasures is not very convincing. Mill finds it unquestionable that higher pleasures will always be preferred as long as people have the means to engage with them. This could be attributed to pride, love of liberty and personal independence, or overall dignity. However, philosophers and novelists like Dostoyevsky are notorious for their gambling and alcohol addiction. Although Mill’s argument seems compelling in theory, in practice fleeting satisfactions can be appealing for anyone, regardless of their intellectual capacity.

On the other hand, Mill’s argument makes a compelling argument regarding how higher pleasures outweigh the pains. Mill admits that the higher the intellectual capacities, the higher the requirement is to satisfy it. However, he claims that the satisfaction will be as achievable as one’s intellectual capacity. This might not be true as an individual who is aware of his imperfections may not have the capacity to overcome them, leading him to brood over how terrible he is at everything. Here, one could point out Kafka, who is notorious for his acute depression and pessimistic view of life, and suggest that his intelligence and intellectuality impeded him with unhappiness. Mill considers this detrimental impact of higher awareness and suggests that the sophisticated individual will never envy the unconscious. This is because individuals with higher capacities are presumed to have a more profound understanding and appreciation of complex aspects of life, including the higher pleasures and the imperfections. So, in essence, Mill implies that the pleasures emanating from a higher form of happiness should (as long as imperfections are bearable) outweigh the unhappiness stemming from imperfections.

To sum up, critics argue that utilitarianism reduces humans to the level of animals because it emphasizes pleasure-seeking. However, Mill's perspective on pleasures provides a strong counter-argument. He categorizes pleasures into 'higher' and 'lower' types, and says that humans naturally prefer the higher pleasures when they have a chance to experience both. Still, there are some problems with Mill's ideas. His categorization of pleasures can be seen as subjective, the idea of 'competent judges' may seem elitist, and his claim that everyone prefers higher pleasures might not hold true in real life. However, Mill’s argument that higher pleasures, despite their inherent challenges, are compelling provides a strong argument on how humans innately seek happiness differently than animals, emphasizing the complexity of human pleasure.

Bentham, Jeremy and John Stuart Mill. The Classical Utilitarians. Edited by John Troyer.

Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003.