Blog 3

The first two chapters of John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism argues that moral belief has not varied much in history, therefore he believes that “whatever steadiness or consistency these moral beliefs have attained, has been mainly due to the tacit influence of a standard not recognized”. This standard (what Mill’s believes to be the greatest happiness principle) has shaped ethical discussion and fundamental morals in humans for quite some time. He then proceeds to provide objectives to his theory and counter argues them. A specific argument that intrigued me was how protesters of utilitarianism argue that happiness cannot be the purpose of human life because men can survive without happiness and “that all noble human beings have felt this, and could not have become noble but by learning the lesson of Entsagen, or renunciation.” Mills responds by saying that it is possible to live without happiness, like in the case of martyrs. However, although a martyr gives up his individual happiness in the noblest way his actions lead to the happiness of others, which supports the greatest happiness principle.

I think Mills makes a compelling argument, however I would strengthen his response by referring back to his statement about pleasures that suggests people prefer pleasure that employs their higher faculties. Even though these higher faculties may create more suffering in life, yet, because of one’s pride a person will “never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence.” Also, it is important to note that Mills believes that pride does not take the place of happiness, but is an essential part of happiness.  By adding this argument one can suggest that even the wisest and noblest of humans live with more suffering however these people are still instinctively aiming for and reaching happiness in life.