Batman would not be a Utilitarian

            In Jon Stuart Mill’s piece, Utilitarianism, he begins by describing one of the basic beliefs of utilitarianism; that pleasure and the absence of pain are the only things good in and of themselves. In other words, pleasure is the only intrinsically good thing. A utilitarian tries to promote the maximum happiness or pleasure (I will use these words interchangeably) to the most people possible. So if a man in prison is in pain because of an illness and the prison medical staff is able to help him, they should relieve him of this pain. This is a simple example of eliminating pain from the world and promoting pleasure. However, it is precisely on the topic of prison that I have an issue. Let’s say the man was sent to prison because he raped and killed a father’s daughter. Under this view of utilitarianism, what should be the fate of this convicted rapist? It will take away pleasure by sending him to prison, but then again he raped and murdered a person. If sending the man to prison caused pleasure in the daughters father, who’s pleasure takes precedence? To satisfy the happiness of both parties, one could not send the rapist to prison and let him live a free life but lie to the father that he did in fact go to prison. The father would find pleasure in a lie and the rapist pleasure in a free life; but to the average reader this situation does not feel right. The rapist should be punished for the terrible things he did and the father shouldn’t find comfort in a lie after losing his daughter. This sense of justice that we have has been overlooked by Jon Mill. It also seems to have an intrinsic value like pleasure.