Consequentialist Ethics According to John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill embraces a version of consequentialism called utilitarianism. Going back to the case about lying to your friend. For a utilitarian, it’s right to lie to your friend to protect your other friend’s secret info just in case doing so produces the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness.

The right action maximizes happiness (or pleasure) when compared to other actions you might perform. Promoting happiness or pleasure is the ultimate goal of morality. But, you might wonder if all forms of pleasure carry equal weight? Or, are some types of pleasures more valuable? This leads to the first idea from Mill.

Idea #1: Intellectual pleasures are more valuable than pure physical pleasures.

Jeremy Bentham was a utilitarian that lived before Mill. Bentham thought of all pleasures being qualitatively similar. So, all pleasures have roughly equal value in doing the utilitarian calculation to discover what’s right.

But, as Mill and others pointed out, this leads to the objection to utilitarianism that it’s a morality best suited for fat and happy swine. It makes the point of morality maximizing physical pleasures.

In response, Mill refines utilitarianism. He notes that intellectual pleasures are higher than pure physical pleasures. Solving an intellectual puzzle, playing chess, and writing a book, are qualitatively better than eating chocolate cake, getting a massage, and smelling flowers. 

Though intellectual pleasures are often accompanied by toil and produce less immediate gratification, they are intrinsically more satisfying that fleeting physical sensations. This leads to a memorable quote from Mill's book Utilitarianism.

Idea #2: Everyone’s happiness counts equally.

When you think about moral people from history who comes to mind? Probably people like Gandhi, Jesus, and Mother Teresa. Why were they moral? They stood for others. They loved others well. This often came at the expense of their own happiness. They didn't value their own happiness above the happiness of others.

When you think of immoral people from history who comes to mind? Probably people like Hitler, Stalin, and a serial killer like Ted Bundy. Why are they immoral? They inflicted their own agenda on others. They harmed others ultimately in the name of their own self-interest. They valued their happiness above the happiness of others.

Mill captures this idea that morality involves impartiality. It involves equally considering the happiness of everyone. It involves not putting extra weight on your own happiness.

But, you might think there's a problem with this feature of Mill's ethics. What about parents and their children?

Isn't part of being a good parent being partial toward the happiness of your child? If you're deciding whether to take your child to the zoo or donate that time to the local homeless shelter are you doing something immoral by favoring taking your kid to the zoo? Imagine that helping at the homeless shelter would have a greater net impact on happiness: your child we be a little happy but more people at the shelter would be made happy.

What do you think about this objection? Do you think it works? Or can Mill's utilitarianism capture why it's morally okay to sometimes be partial toward yourself or your family? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

Idea #3: Motives are irrelevant to an action’s morality.

Deontological Ethics (i.e. duty-based ethics) is the biggest rival to consequentialism. A deontological theory like Kantian ethics focuses on whether actions align with moral imperatives. Your duty is to perform the action that aligns with the moral law, and your action only has moral worth when you perform it from a sense of duty—out of respect for the moral law. Your intentions matter, morally.

For utilitarianism, your intentions are irrelevant. Mill thinks we often act from mixed-motives. Motives might determine whether a person is a good or bad person, but motives do not determine whether the act the person performs is morally right.

You can do the morally right thing from the wrong motives. I save a person from drowning because I see that the person is a rich person I know. My motive is a big cash reward from saving them. Though I save the person from a motive that reflects poorly on me, I still perform the morally right action.

Being motivated to do your duty, for Mill, doesn’t make an action have greater moral value or worth. What matters is that it generates good outcomes. The rich drowning guy lives to see another day.

Idea #4: Morality doesn’t require huge self-sacrifice.

This idea is a response to a common objection to utilitarianism, namely that it’s too demanding. If the point of morality is happiness, and actions are right when they maximize net happiness, then living a moral life appears to require great self-sacrifice. Is it moral to spend money on toys for my dog when that same money could save a person’s life?

Utilitarianism may require huge self-sacrifice in the name of promoting the greater good. Mill responds by saying most individuals aren’t required by utilitarianism to make huge self-sacrifices. Most people are not in the position to make large-scale impact through being generous.

People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have the cash to make a large dent in minimizing suffering around the globe, so they are obligated to do so. But, small potatoes like me and probably you, don’t have such resources. Utilitarianism doesn’t obligate us to channel all our resources above providing for the bare necessities to alleviating pain and promoting happiness.

It’s not morally wrong for me to by my dog a toy instead of donating that money to charity. Were I to donate to charity instead of buying the toy, I wouldn't be doing anything wrong.

Idea #5: Utilitarianism isn’t necessarily a godless theory of ethics.

This last idea is a bit shocking. When you think about utilitarianism you might think of contemporary utilitarians like Peter Singer. He’s an atheist. Utilitarianism seems to take God out of the picture. Ultimate intrinsic value is not found in God’s commands, divine law as revealed in Scripture, or any other religious thing. Instead, the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, sentience, is the foundation for the ultimate thing of moral value, namely happiness, and maximizing that is what makes acts morally right. There’s no need for God.

Mill didn’t necessarily think that utilitarianism is a godless doctrine. Perhaps he would say that atheists have hijacked a theory that is not, of necessity, godless. Why does he say utilitarianism and God are not mutually incompatible as a foundation for morality?

Mill thinks whether the existence of God is compatible with utilitarianism depends on your view of God. If you think God’s ultimate desire for people is that they be happy, then utilitarianism is not Godless. God’s will for humanity is compatible with the principle of utility. God commands things because they are good—because they lead his creatures to happiness and away from pain and suffering.

But, if you are a divine command theorist, and you think things are morally good simply because God commands them, then your view of God is incompatible with utilitarianism. On such a view, God might command a people to commit genocide, which inflicts massive amount of pain and suffering, and such an act would be morally good because commanded by God.

Watch A YouTube Video on Consequentialist Ethics