You are on page 1of 2

What kind of utilitarian is Mill?

The centre-point of Mill's moral theory about which all relevant discussion is focused is highlighted in the second paragraph of chapter two of Utilitarianism, whereby morality is defined in the proverbial actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. In doing so, Mill provides a criterion of right and wrong whereby he states clearly what Utilitarian theory states is morally right. It is from this statement and all that draws from it that we determine what kind of Utilitarian Mill is. Utilitarianism has been broadly classified into two categories: Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Points of contention in each enable us to decipher how different the two really are, and how well Mill's theory of morality maps on to the two concepts. Act Utilitarianism is defended and argued on the basis of how demanding it may be, how it applies in decision-making of our daily lives, and what it designates to be the criterion of morality, that is right and wrong. Decision-making is further analysed into single-level act utilitarianism, self-effacing act utilitarianism, and the median of the two, that is multi-level act utilitarianism. In a similar vein, Rule Utilitarianism is gauged as a criterion of morality, a tool in decision-making, and for how demanding it can be in comparison to Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism is the school of thought that the right action is the one that maximizes happiness. Any decision taken otherwise is wrong. For this straightforward property, act utilitarianism has been called a direct theory, one in which it is immediately apparent what is right or wrong, given a situation. In such a theory, principles are applied directly to acts. Thus is defined Act Utilitarianism as a criterion of morality, and in this regard, Mill is Act Utilitarian and advocates fully the Act Utilitarian principle. However, Act Utilitarianism as a means for deciding what is right and wrong, is a different matter entirely, much more intricate, and even more so when it comes to Mill's position on the matter. The first differentiation that is drawn is that between actualism and probabilism in every day decision-making, that is, the consideration of a balance of pleasure over pain, and how that can affect decision-making as per Utilitarianism. Actualism takes into account the actual, perceptible outcomes of our actions, assessing which particular route will maximize utility most, and taking that route. Only in doing so will we be able to pursue the greatest possible balance of pleasure over pain. Mill, in most respects, is an actualist. However, several cases can be made against actualist conduct on the grounds of impracticability, haste, and that the prospect of perceiving outcomes extends infinitely over the course of time. Actualism is countered, as illustrated by the example of the rash doctor in Crisp's 'Mill on Utilitarianism', by probabilism, a method of decision-making that entails the taking of probabilities into account. Probabilism offers an account of rightness in terms of what a person deems fit to do in a particular situation, what he is justified in believing at the time, even if it does not occasion a greater balance of pleasure over pain than a decision where there is a lower probability of the outcome that we want. Sidgwick identified this problem and defined it as objective versus subjective righteousness, that is, maximization of overall happiness through actualism versus maximization of expected overall happiness through probabilism. Although Mill is seen as an actualist as per 2.2, he often talks about intentions and how they foresee consequences, in doing so effectively advocating probabilism to a certain degree. Largely, however, Mill appears unconcerned about the differences between actualism and probabilism in the decision-making process. Further to our discussion of the various aspect of decision-making is the question of how often one must refer to the Utilitarian theory when making moral decisions; to what extent moral agents may allow their thought-processes to be dominated and influenced by the principles of Act Utilitarianism. Single-level act utilitarians think only at the level of act utilitarianism, so as to consider only the maximization of happiness without regard to any rules or customs such as keeping promises, not lying, and not killing or hurting anybody. Such a level of devotion to the act utilitarian principle seems absurd to say the least, not simply because it advocates a society unregulated by moral rules, but also because it calls for impartial character that cannot be psychologically practical. There exists also another strand of act utilitarianism contrary to single-level act utilitarianism, which provides reasons for never consulting the act utilitarian theory in decision procedures; a theory which assumes that there are sufficient other ways to determine how one is to act in a given situation without referring to the act utilitarian principle, knowns as self-effacing utilitarianism. In this aspect Mill refers to customary morality, which entails the morality in man that develops within him irrespective of knowledge of Utilitarianism; so as to say mankind has a sense of morality that may exist intrinsically or may be attributed to cultural instillment. It is this very 'customary morality' that provides a strong counterexample to single-level act utilitarianism, whereby Mill himself states that over time humankind has acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have this come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. And it is the partiality which customary morality engenders towards the people we grow to care about and the decisions we come to favour that Mill advocates and that distinguishes him from a single-level utilitarian who would avoid partiality in all or most circumstances. Mill restates this in Mankind have been learning by experience the tendencies of actions; on experience... the morality of life is dependent. With regard to single-level and self-effacing act utilitarianism, the question still stands then: what kind of Utilitarian is Mill? In fact Mill is regarded as a multi-level act utilitarian, that is, one who holds that customary morality does contain the act utilitarian principle to an extent, and is often impartial in that way, but that when non-act utilitarian principles coincide and a conflict arises that cannot be resolved, the act utilitarian principle should then be referred to. Mill's view incorporates both act utilitarianism and customary non-act utilitarian morality into his moral theory, claiming that decisions should be made through the rational synthesis of both concepts. Having considered to what extent Mill is act utilitarian, we then come to Rule Utilitarianism, an indirect moral theory

assessed thoroughly by Urmson, who gives a precise definition of this type of Utilitarianism. Urmson states that in Rule Utilitarianism, a particular action is justified as being right by showing that it is in accord with some moral rule, and it is shown to be wrong by showing that it transgresses some moral rule. This in particular is the criterion of morality that Rule Utilitarianism designates. Rule Utilitarianism, too, focuses on actions, but through the medium of certain rules which would lead to the maximization of happiness if they were to be accepted by a majority of people. In Urmson's view, then, Mill is seen as Rule Utilitarian, whereby he advocates certain moral rules to an ultimate end. However, it is worth assessing whether Urmson's claim really applies: if Mill were to advocate rules such as not lying and not cheating, that is not to say that he was being Rule Utilitarian, but that he was multi-level act utilitarian, that is proposing customary morality with reference to the Act Utilitarian principle. As a criterion of morality, therefore, it still holds that Mill is Act Utilitarian. The question then arises how Rule Utilitarianism can be applied to every day decision-making, a question more pressing than that of the criterion of morality. This is because Rule Utilitarianism sounds viable theoretically in a world where people were to adhere to standardized moral rules and never transgress them. However, in situations where one is to choose between an intuitively right decision that is customarily moral and adhering to a rule when one's better judgement tells him not to, Rule Utilitarianism collapses. The following of a rule at the expense of, for example, torture or death of several people, has come to be known as worshipping of rules, whereby the greatest happiness is not maximized in anticipation of the outcomes of a rule that may or may not be immediately foreseeable. Although in some cases, rules aid the maximizing of happiness, in most others they may cause the reverse. It is for this reason that Rule Utilitarianism is often not considered an alternate viable theory to Act Utilitarianism at all, and in fact a branch of the theory which needs to be assessed for its worth. In terms of demandingness, Rule Utilitarianism usually is far less demanding than Act Utilitarianism; it asks far less of people to sacrifice for greater happiness, and for this reason the discussion of rights comes in to play. Rule Utilitarianism allows for a general majority to advocate rules that give them rights if they are to bring happiness, such as the right to personal property, whereas Act Utilitarianism will not pay heed to such rights if they are to deny happiness to others. This, again, is a question of whether public happiness is above individual happiness, a question that neither type of utilitarian theory can fully answer. It can conclusively be said that Mill is a multi-level gradualist, who believes in the incorporation of act utilitarianism into customary morality over a period of time whereby the public should slowly come to a general consensus of morality vis a vis observation and experience, the ultimate end of which is happiness. In this aspect Mill is neither fully Act Utilitarian nor fully Rule Utilitarian: he offers a kind of inductive synthesis of the two ideas.

You might also like