Mill Reading Response

This reading reminds me of the reading that attempts to convince people to do their part to relieve hunger and unhappiness by donating money. The chapters we read discuss the connection between morality and helping others, or as Mill would put it, maximizing good and happiness.  Both writers try to establish the idea that happiness is good, suffering is bad, and it is up to us to alleviate unhappiness in the ways that we can.  This line especially reminded me of the previous reading: “happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain.” The setup of both arguments is somewhat similar.In addition, the ways the writers attempt to convince readers to take action is not contradictory.

Mill attempts to apply his argument more generally than the other author.  In my opinion, in doing so, he offers vague definitions of “happiness” and “good,” and “right” and “wrong.”  Mill seems to believe that people oversimplify arguments in favor of utilitarianism, but some moral examples come to mind that make me wonder what Mill would deem the “right” course of action.  Although some examples are fairly simple and applicable, some are less clear.  Sometimes it is ambiguous what exactly will maximize happiness, and be the most useful course of action for all people involved.  For example, someone drinks too much and kisses someone other than his girlfriend at a party, and forgets about it.  Embarrassed about being kissed by someone in a relationship, the girl he kissed, who is your friend, begs you not to tell him, and she tells you it would bring her happiness if you kept your mouth shut.  Mill does not come up with a circumstance for a position where the outcome will cause some happiness and others misery, and the maximum amount of good becomes ambiguous.  How is one able to prioritize people’s happiness and maximize the amount of good they can do in this situation?  Mill would say the friendship is irrelevant to the course of action because the action must maximize the “pleasure” or “good.” He might argue that two people could benefit from the honesty provided in being told about his action.  It is unclear whether this is the case, however.  You don’t know what “good” it will bring to tell the boy about his indiscretion.  Perhaps he and his girlfriend have an understanding.  Perhaps he will be angry with you and find you accusatory and rude for prying.  On the other hand, it could make him understand that he should not be in a relationship any longer, and in the long term, it would be the “right” decision.  I wish Mill had more clearly established what exceptions could exist, and how to determine the level of people’s “usefulness” and what “good” decisions are in situations like this one.  What exactly makes “some kinds of pleasure…more desirable and more valuable than others”?  Though arguably a fairly trivial moral example in the grand scheme of things, it is tricky to apply to Mill’s argument. Even if you are willing to “[sacrifice your] greatest good for the good of others,” it is hard to know how to do so.  Just how much does your own happiness factor in, given that Mill argues each person’s happiness is important?  So many questions arise that make it difficult to take action based on Mill's argument.

Although I found some of Mill’s definitions vague, and although I recognize, as some students said in class, that there are examples that make it difficult to apply Mill’s suggestions, one thing I did like was how clearly he laid out his intentions.  I also liked the fact that he distinguished between quantity and quality of utility and pleasure.  His rejoinder to the concept that utility and pleasure cannot exist together seems to be an attempt to hint at a fallacy of birfurcation in that argument. He establishes that they do not always exist in isolation from each other, which I found to be an important clarification that strengthened his argument.  I also liked that he engaged with and opposed Kant’s viewpoint to strengthen his own argument.  I do not believe that I agree with Mill’s argument that “utilitarian arguments are indispensable,” in all cases simply because it is challenging to apply his argument in certain situations.  Mill asks “What is there to decide whether a particular pleasure is worth purchasing at the cost of a particular pain, except the feelings and judgment of the experienced?” I do not think this was adequately addressed in these chapters.