Utilitarianism is a philosophy where there are no fixed rules, a philosophy of

consequence where the ends usually defines the means. Mills refines the

utilitarian traditions by building on older ideas and emphasizing his own.

Though, some might find that this is a self-centered view of the world there

is much more to utilitarianism than a basic hedonistic approach. As well as

the advantages that this sort of tradition can bring there are also a few

drawbacks.

The underlying and theme and idea of this philosophy would be the pursuit

of happiness. This would translate into the quest for pleasure and the

avoidance of pain. The name of this philosophy relates to the usefulness of

one act or another. Would that act bring pleasure or pain? This is the idea

that ties every aspect of the philosophy together. In class, we were asked

the question about whether this is true of human being. Are human beings

mainly animals that pay mind to nothing, but their own needs and desires? Is

this true of everyone? A martyr would be fulfilling is own agenda just a serial

murderer would be? Can we just put everyone into one big category without

any distinctions what so ever? My reply would be that it is not simply

pleasure and pain that motivates people. Mills is right about the nature of

human being for we are on some levels animals. However, humans have

something that other animals do not have. Humans have a highly developed

mind that not only entitles a highly advance reasoning system, but also a

bigger capacity for emotions. They have reason as well as emotions. This is

what motivates people. People are generally not the callous and coldly
calculating animals that some would have believe they are. The reason the

martyr dies is not because of pleasure or pain, but because of the faith he

has. We can assume that such a person does not truly want to die and wants

to live, but it is the emotion the faith he has that allow him to be able to

sacrifice his life. According to utilitarianism the martyr died for the selfish

pleasure knowing he died for his religion. It is not necessarily true, he could

have died for the unselfish emotion that his faith brought him. The martyr

might have been happy to die for his faith and that could be the selfish

pleasure he retains

This brings us to the definition of happiness. To Mills there is a definite

difference between contentment and happiness. Happiness can only truly be

experienced by humans and contentment is usually for animals. Animals are

not happy, but content because they do not have the intellectual ability to

experience this happiness. To Mills happiness comes from the experiences of

pleasures of all different types of media especially media that requires a lot

more cognitive activity. I agree that the pursuit of such intellectual and base

pleasures can bring happiness. I feel that happiness stems from emotions.

The emotions can come from books, poetry, television, etc. The emotion is

what is truly important. Mills separates the pleasures in a hierarchal fashion

for he believed that some were far more important than others. The reason

for this is because the effects of these higher order pleasures, last much

longer than any lower order ones. A sitcom that makes people laugh on

every Tuesday night can be view as a higher order pleasure if that TV show
manages to leave a lasting impression on its viewers. Regardless of the

medium, it is the impression left upon people that decides what a higher or

lower order pleasure. If the sitcom managed to make people feel some

emotional response which would cause them to grow then it is important.

The intellectual books and shows are important as well, but it is usually when

such an experience is coupled with a particularly strong emotion that it

causes someone to learn and to improve themselves.

Improvement is key in this philosophy. At one point, in our discussion about

Mills, we spoke of the difference between tranquility and excitement.

Tranquillity being a time where there is no difference of pace, where

everything moves along like clockwork. Excitement would be a time where

there is change. To want nothing, but tranquility, would close the door to

improvement and to future happiness. Such a person might be content, but

they are far from being happy. Change is something that people are wary of

because of the unknown consequences. With utilitarianism you can judged

the consequences of your actions to determine the usefulness of it. It is far

better to improve and become happy then, to stay content without change. It

is only through the moments of excitement that one can truly enjoy

tranquility and vice versa. Mills emphasizes the need for education of

everyone so that everyone can become responsible citizens. While reading,

what sounded similar was the resemblance his train of thought had to the

humanists of the renaissance beliefs. This people believed that to better

understand the essence of the man and the world surround him one have as
many tools as possible at one’s disposal. It was Plato that said that the more

culture a society the more stable it would become. To make inform decisions

there must be some education behind it.

Utilitarianism is a philosophy that really appreciates the individual, but it also

keeps the group in priority. This philosophy can be used as a way to run a

government. In a democratic setting where one can not afford to always go

by a series of unchangeable rules. There is the utilitarian method of pros and

cons. We look for the decision that benefits the biggest possible group. This

is where the education that is insisted upon comes to play. A democratic

government can not afford to have a set of people that do not understand

the decisions they are taking because the whole calculation would useless.

The opposite of this would be to go by a set of religious rules that can never

change and must always be obeyed. This may be easier for people of no

education to go by but, it is not always the best way. To have a stable

society more than the majority of people must understand the decisions that

they take in government and the consequences of their actions. Aristotle

claimed that ethics are judged by a society in itself and not a higher power

and here it is the same. Mills was probably because of his philosophy a

person that thought of the future with a lot less optimism than what seemed

to be the view of the century. He understood that the policies of his century

would bring consequences unto the world of the future. This contrast

between his century and his philosophy is truly remarkable because it shows

that though he was a part of such a world he was able to form his own ideas
and opinions about it. The long-term in utilitarianism is important and should

be even more important than any short-term gain. It is the long term effects

are often the ones to create more damage.

This philosophy in general is great in its ideals and ideas, but it is this

flexibility that enables the abuse of such a philosophy. There are people who

will use this to do exactly as they like. There is also the fact that there are

some consequences that we can not for see. Things like serendipity and

other chance occurrences will be greatly diminished if we could. Though, this

is overall a good philosophy we must remain cautious and only take from it

as much as are world permits. In our world where we do encounter utilitarian

like policies, there are also much more religious principle as well, it is

precisely this paradox that prevents us from using this doctrine to its full

capacity.