CHAPTER IV Utilitarianism:

John Stuart Mill

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

1. articulate the meaning of a consequentialist ethics;

2. analyze the Greatest Happiness Principle;

3. examine the objections to Mill's position and his responses to each of them; and

4. evaluate ethical decisions from the point of view of utilitarianism.

Introduction

The introduction is exploring the idea that every time we make a decision, it creates an effect—not
just on ourselves, but on others too. Sometimes we act with good intentions, but things still go
wrong. Other times, the outcome is great even if our reasons weren’t the best. So, how do we know
if a decision is morally right?

The intro leads to a big question:

Should we judge a decision by the reason behind it (our motive) or by what happens because of it
(its consequences)?

This sets up the key idea of Utilitarianism:

It’s a moral theory that says what matters most is the result of an action—how much happiness or
pain it causes for everyone affected.

 However, as one knows, real life is a lot more complicated than this. One's motives are not
always pure, and consequences vary in kind and severity depending on those affected.
 In this case, how does one judge the morality of a decision or an act? Does one examine the
motivation behind the decision and see whether the act is mostly motivated by goodness or
does one look at the results of the act?
 If one judges the morality of an action based on its consequences, what categories can he/she
use to judge whether the act did produce good consequences?
 How can one say that an action did produce desirable consequences? Does the end justify the
means?
 Or Does the goodness of the consequences, for instance, have more bearing than the way, the
method, or modus operandi, with which such consequences are delivered?
 In other words, even if one were to say that morality is a matter of producing the best
consequences, how do we understand its moral value in relation to motive and action?
 Are motives irrelevant so long as an action or decision produces favorable consequences?
 Is the method by which a decision is carried out immaterial in assessing the rightness or
wrongness of an act (for instance, the act itself is considered wrong, such as lying)?

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that tries to grapple with these questions.

  Among the famous proponents of this way of thinking, John Stuart Mill [1806-1873], is
considered by many to be the most influential.
 John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian theory of morality is a development and clarification of the earlier
form of the theory authored by Jeremy Bentham [1748-1832] and espoused by his father, James
Mill [1773-1836].
 James Mill homeschooled John Stuart on the Benthamite doctrine, which essentially states that
it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.
 Happiness, in this context is understood as the predominance of pleasure over pain.
 John Stuart later on revises this doctrine by highlighting a distinction between qualities and
quantities of pleasures and pains.
 Mill's moral theory is considered as consequentialist in that it judges the rightness and
wrongness of actions based on their consequences. As opposed to deontological theories––
––of morality like Kant's, which emphasize the motivation of duty, and virtue ethics, which
emphasize the character of agents
 Utilitarianism judges actions based on the quality and quantity of pleasure they are able to
extend to as many people as possible.
 In other words, Mill holds that happiness (the predominance of pleasure over pain) is the goal of
morality.
 One deliberates and reflects upon what is right before acting because one takes into account the
potential effects of one's actions on other people's happiness.
 One, therefore, sees the importance of community in making moral choices. Deciding on one's
happiness is not a solitary affair but an act which essentially brings to the fore one's relationship
with others.

Bentham's Felicific/Hedonistic Calculus is a method/guide to balance the pros and cons of a proposed
course of action in relation to the balance of pleasures and pains it potentially produces. These are some
guide questions to measure it.

1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?

2. Duration: How long does the pleasure last?
3. Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely that the pleasure will occur?
4. Propinquity or remoteness: How soon does the pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: What is the probability that the action is followed by sensations of the same kind?
6. Purity: What is the probability that it is not followed by sensations of the opposite kind?
7. Extent: How many people are affected?

The Greatest Happiness Principle

In Mill's ethics, actions are understood as right with respect to their capacity to promote happiness and
wrong when they tend to promote the opposite of happiness.

Happiness, as defined by Mill, is pleasure and the absence of pain, while unhappiness is pain or the
absence of pleasure.
For him, the Principle of Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle is the supreme measure of morality.
Pleasure and the freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends, and all desirable things are
desired either because they are inherently pleasurable or because they contribute to the prevention of
pain.

The Greatest Happiness Principle vs Epicurean Doctrines

One of the foremost objections to such a doctrine is that it seems to degrade the nature of the human
person by reducing morality to a pleasure-driven activity, similar to that of an animal's life that seeks
only to multiply pleasure and avoid pain.

With regards to that, this doctrine is in turn sometimes contrasted by objectors to the doctrine of the
Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus [341-270 B.C.] who thought that the purpose of philosophy is to
attain happiness and tranquility in life. He believed that happiness corresponds to ataraxia and aponia,
the peace and freedom from fear and the absence of pain, respectively.

However, followers of the Epicurean doctrine respond that it is actually their accusers that present the
human person in a degrading light by implying that human beings are incapable of experiencing any
other form of pleasure other than that comparable to an animal's.

Mill adds that there is no Epicurean or any such-related doctrine which does not assign to the pleasures
of the intellect, feelings, and the imagination a higher value than pleasures that derive from mere
physical sensations. (Basically stating that pleasure can also come from the intellect rather than physical
sensations as a distinction from the Epicurean Doctrine.)

In other words, Mill's utilitarian doctrine makes a concrete distinction between higher and lower forms
of pleasure. It does not advocate a life of reckless abandon and non-stop partying. Some kinds of
pleasures are more desirable and valuable than others.

Aspect Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle Epicurean Doctrine

Definition of Ataraxia (peace/freedom from fear) and

Pleasure and the absence of pain.
Happiness Aponia (absence of pain).

Actions are right if they promote

Philosophy's purpose is to achieve a
Main Idea happiness; wrong if they cause the
tranquil and painless life.
opposite.

The Principle of Utility: happiness is Happiness is the goal, achieved by

Measure of Morality
the ultimate moral standard. avoiding fear and pain.

Not all pleasures are equal—higher Critics think it's only about bodily
View on Pleasure pleasures (mind, intellect) are more pleasure, but Epicureans say even
valuable than lower (bodily) pleasures. mental peace is a key form of pleasure.

Objection/Response Critics say it degrades humans by Critics also say it's animal-like.
comparing them to animals. Mill says Epicureans respond that critics
that’s wrong—humans enjoy misunderstand—humans can and do
Aspect Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle Epicurean Doctrine

intellectual and emotional pleasures

enjoy higher kinds of pleasure.
too.

Higher pleasures (intellect,

Pleasure Type Focus on peace of mind and freedom
imagination, emotion) are preferred
Preference from fear, not wild physical pleasure.
over physical ones.

Common That Mill’s principle means nonstop fun That Epicureanism means just eating,
Misunderstanding or reckless pleasure-seeking. drinking, and being merry.

How does one determine which pleasures are higher than others? Mill explains:

The types of Pleasures

If I were asked what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures or what makes one pleasure more
valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible
answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a
decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable
pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above
the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of
discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable
of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing
quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small amount.

If Bentham's version of utilitarianism focuses on the potential amount or quantity of happiness that an
action can potentially produce for it to be considered right, Mill's ethics makes a sharp and nuanced
division of higher and lower forms of pleasure in terms of quality. Happiness should not be measured
solely on the basis of how long or how intense the feeling of pleasure is for a person or to those affected
by an action as Bentham, for instance, had thought. Although both agree that an action's rightness or
wrongness must take into account the number of those that shall be affected, Mill says that even if more
people benefit from an action's consequences, but the kind of pleasure they experience is considered
lower or baser than the consequences of an action that pleases a lot less people, but please them in a
more human way, then the latter course of action is deemed more right, in that it promotes the greatest
happiness of the greatest number while considering the fact that some pleasures are more befitting of a
human being than others. Mill says that the pleasures of a higher quality are those that employ our
distinctively human faculties, such as the intellect.

Competent Judges in Moral Decisions

However, it should be noted that Mill is not saying that people who have experienced both the pleasures
of sensation and pleasures of the intellect consistently prefer the latter on every occasion. He is not
saying that competent judges of pleasures always prefer the higher forms of pleasure, say, reading a
good book over having a night of drinks with friends. He says that these people would not choose a
manner of existence that includes a greater amount of lower pleasures than higher pleasures. While it is
reasonable to think that someone of experience of rational competence would sometimes prefer to go
out and party with friends on some nights, it would go against reason for them to go out every night to
party at the expense of experiencing higher forms of pleasure, albeit of a smaller quantity. In other
words, a wise man would not exchange his lot for that of a fool's even if he were promised the pleasure's
befitting of a fool's for a lifetime. This is precisely because a competently experienced human recognizes
that the pleasures of wisdom, though fewer in quantity, far outweigh that of a fool's. Mill does not assert
that the exercise of distinct human faculties like the intellect has a greater intrinsic value than the
exercise of those that promote the pleasures of sensation. What he claims is that the pleasures derived
from uniquely human activities such as reading, conversing with others, and philosophizing have
superior value than other forms of activities.

For example, if one is faced with the choice of playing online games all day for a week and studying
school lessons for at least three hours a day for a week, one must ask oneself which course of action
fulfills one's higher faculties more. One should also ask how many people can benefit from such a choice
compared to the other, as well as the kind of happiness it can bring these people. Let us thus examine
the case:

Choosing Between Higher and Lower Pleasures

Mill acknowledges that people who understand both intellectual (higher) and bodily (lower) pleasures
don’t always choose higher pleasures every time. A wise person might still enjoy simple pleasures like
parties or games, but they would never trade a life of deeper fulfillment for a life of shallow
entertainment. This is because higher pleasures, like those that use the intellect, are seen as more
valuable and fitting for human dignity, even if they’re harder to attain or less frequent.

To apply this idea, Mill compares two activities:

Playing online games all day vs. Studying three hours a day.

Playing online games all day for a week Studying three hours a day for a week
Tedious, yet allows one to develop
Immediately satisfies one's his/her intellect and virtue of
search for fun and excitement perseverance in learning
important lessons for school
The discipline on focusing on relevant
Allows one to hang out with friends tasks related to one’s education can
go a long way in one’s future endeavors
Lets one enjoy oneself while escaping
the everyday pressures of Relatively solitary
daily tasks like household chores, etc.
Has the potential to bring pleasure to
Essentially satisfies one and one's
one's family by showing one's gratitude
gaming friends immediately
for their gift of education
Mill encourages us to reflect deeply:

Which activity develops your higher human faculties more such as reason, imagination, and moral
feeling (quality)?
Which leads to longer-lasting, more meaningful happiness—not just for you, but for others?

Would you be content living a life of shallow fun if it meant giving up opportunities for growth and
knowledge?

Mill isn’t saying higher pleasures must always win—but they shouldn’t be ignored just because lower
pleasures are easier or more common. He warns that people often settle for less simply because they
lack exposure to better pleasures or are shaped by a society that values quick gratification over deeper
fulfillment.

In the end, Mill argues that those who’ve experienced both forms of pleasure and still choose the
intellectual, moral, and meaningful life are the best judges of what is truly valuable.

When one carefully examines the kinds of pleasures at stake in the possible consequences of one's
decision, one realizes that studying, while seemingly "painful" relative to playing one's desire for
immediate gratification, bears more potential to bring happiness in the long run compared to online
games. Hence, even if we say, for instance, that playing online games brings more pleasure to more
people in a more immediate manner, one still has to ask what form of pleasure it brings them. Are these
pleasures long-lasting? What happens after a week of camaraderie in the online gaming shop? Are the
bonds created there bonds of true friendship or provisional bonds of usefulness (your alliances are
created and judged based on your ability to play the game such that if you are a terrible player, is there
any guarantee that people would want to play with you still?)? Does the pleasure of winning in a game
bring you authentic human fulfillment or is the pleasure transitory and empty at the end of the day?

On the other hand, if one chooses to instead use a shorter amount of time studying, one also has to ask
if the pain of school work is worth the pleasure it potentially creates for oneself and others. Even if there
is no guarantee that studying automatically translates into higher grades in school, is the activity still
worth doing? What life skills does one gain from persevering through pages and pages of lessons?
Notwithstanding that this choice might bring pleasure to less people (to just one's parents and oneself,
for instance), might it not be said that the quality of pleasure is significantly higher than the pleasures
derived from playing online games all day? Is not the potential of deepening and expanding one's
knowledge and exercising one's intellect worth the pain of the activity? Would not the possibility of
exceling in school and eventually getting a good job benefit more people in the long run, and in more
fulfilling ways?

Now, one might say that Mill might conclude that studying is always better than playing. However, one
may argue that one also learns useful skills in playing computer games and that the development of
friendships is more important than getting a good job after graduating from school. Mill must not be
interpreted hastily. He is not saying that lower pleasures must always give way to higher forms of
pleasure. He does not envision persons as one- dimensional. One way of looking at the matter is this:
First, one must ask oneself this question before making the choice: Is there a way to strike a balance
between the two activities such that the importance of experiencing the higher pleasure is not
completely compromised by choosing the other option? Secondly, if one were really just restricted to
choose one activity, one must ask himself/herself which of the two options one would be truly happy
and content in doing exclusively in the context of being a human person. Third, if one were allowed to
experience the maximum amount of pleasure derived from playing online games, he/she one be
amenable to be consigned to an entire life of just playing online games than a life of developing his/her
intellectual faculties? Fourth, would a competent judge, who has had considerable experience of the two
options, prefer to have his/ her immediate desires fulfilled by lower pleasures than to postpone his/her
gratification for the purpose of reaping the happiness involved in cultivating his/her higher faculties?

Mill says that a human being whose capacity for enjoyment is low has a greater chance of having his/ her
pleasures satisfied than a person predisposed towards experiencing higher forms of pleasure. The
development of one's capacity for enjoyment (capacity to appreciate the difference between higher and
lower pleasures) is either inherent in a person or more commonly due to the lack of opportunity to
experience the higher pleasure. Mill does not believe that a person who has had experience of both
lower and higher pleasures would prefer the former at the expense of losing the opportunity to enjoy
the latter. He clarifies this point in this quote:

Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile
influences but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away
if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them and the society to which it has
thrown them, are not favorable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise. Men lose their high
aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes because they have not time or opportunity for
indulging them and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer
them, but because they are the only ones to which they have access, or the only ones which they are
any longer capable of enjoying. It may be questioned whether anyone who has remained equally
susceptible to both classes of pleasures ever knowingly and calmly preferred the lower, though many,
in all ages, have broken down in an ineffectual attempt to combine both.

The Role of Personal Experience and Social Influence

Mill presents an important point in his utilitarian theory of morality. He recognizes a person's
embeddedness in a social, cultural, and historical context that plays a crucial role in his/her capacity to
recognize varying kinds of pleasures. If one is, for instance, born and raised in a society that ultimately
favors the cravings and desires of the flesh over other pleasures, then it is likely that one will have a
preference for these experiences since one does not know any better. Returning to our earlier example,
if one lives in a household which does not nurture and encourage the discipline of studying and learning,
it is but commonsensical to assume that this person is more susceptible to favor feelings which relate to
activities that contain in themselves the prospect of immediate gratification, for instance, playing online
games. The fact that most people associate happiness with sensual gratification and prefers this over
other forms says something about the culture and values of society itself. A society with systems and
institutions that legitimize and reward a life of excess is likely to produce a citizenry that is insensitive, if
not blind, to a higher calling for humanity.

Why Competent Judges Matter in Moral Decisions

One of Mill's most famous quotes runs as follows: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig is of a different
opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. Happiness, according to the
Greatest Happiness Principle, must be pursued in direct proportion to the form of the being which
desires it. In other words, a pig prefers pleasures befitting of its nature and would be clueless to the
possibility of experiencing other or higher forms precisely because it is a pig and not a human being. A
person, however, has the capacity to realize a higher form of happiness because his/ her nature as a
rational being permits him/her to do so. A fool, therefore, is a person who has no idea that being human
allows him/her to experience wisdom and so he/she relegates his/her existence as comparable to that of
a pig's, as it were. In other words, Mill is saying that the forms of pleasures that are considered higher,
like the pleasure of gaining wisdom, because they are more difficult to attain and are to a certain extent
more difficult to access, are oftentimes looked over in favor of pleasures that are easier to access and
immediately gratifying. Ultimately, one must defer to the verdict of competent judges who have
experienced a wide spectrum of pleasures in order to secure a guide for moral judgment. He says, "On a
question which is the best worth having of two pleasures or which of two modes of existence is the most
grateful to the feelings, apart from its moral attributes and from its consequences, the judgment of
those who are qualified by knowledge of both, or, if they differ, that of the majority among them, must
be admitted as final.

One may, therefore, say that in matters of diet, for instance, one ought to seek the opinion of a person
who has experienced both sickness and health to find out whether eating fatty, high-cholesterol foods is
preferable over consuming vegetables and fruits. One who has not known sickness due to a bad diet
cannot have a wise appreciation of how important one's health is over the satisfaction of one's palate. If
this person, therefore, tells one that experience has taught him/her the importance of eating a balanced
diet, one can more or less be certain that he/she knows what he/she is talking about, and that his/her
opinion matters.

To restate, the Greatest Happiness Principle, as the ultimate end of action, sponsors the view that
morality is about fostering an existence that is exempt from pain as much as possible and one that is
capable of enjoying pleasures befitting a human person in terms of both quantity and quality which
benefits not just oneself but others as well. If one is in a quandary regarding which option offers the
prospect of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one must, aside from one's use of reason,
consult the wisdom of those that have experienced a broad range of pleasures that are considered
capable of assessing the value of every alternative.

Replies to Objections on Utilitarianism

To the objection that happiness is unattainable

There are some who object to Mill's proposition by saying that happiness is unattainable. Many things
such as poverty, disease, and failure thwart one's attempt at being happy. Mill responds by saying that if
his objectors define happiness as a continuity of highly pleasurable excitement, then it is true that such a
life is indeed impossible. Pleasures often only last for a certain period. The pleasure derived from eating
only lasts until one experiences hunger once more, while the pleasure derived from being with one's
friends often only lasts for as long as one is in good terms with them. However, Mill says that the life of
happiness defined in his theory is not a life of rapture but an existence made up of a few, transitory
pains, different pleasures with a decided predominance of pleasure over pain. It is a kind of happiness
which does not expect from life more than what it can realistically provide. He adds that history has
shown us that a satisfied and happy life is mainly composed of a balance between tranquility and
excitement. Those who find no happiness in such a state, he says, are generally those who care for no
one but themselves. On one hand, those with no friends soon see that their selfish excitements are
essentially meaningless in the face of death. On the other hand, those who have cultivated friendships
and have left a lasting legacy of fellow feeling for mankind retain their happiness in any circumstance
whether it be in lively moments or on the eve of death. Another reason why some experience difficulties
in being happy is lack of mental cultivation. A person that has developed and harnessed one's mind to
find pleasure in the realms of nature, poetry, art, and science continually finds sources of joy in his/her
life, no matter the circumstance. Happiness is, therefore, attainable if one understands it realistically and
lives one's life in solidarity with others and cultivates one's deeper capacity to enjoy that which endures
in the transitory.

To the objection that Utilitarian morality is incompatible with self-sacrifice

Another objection to Mill's theory is that it does not recognize the value of self-sacrifice. Mill answers
this objection by saying that utilitarianism does recognize the goodness of self-sacrifice which places the
welfare of others over and above one's own but only to the extent that it is done for the sake of
promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and for no other reason is it acceptable other
than this. If self-sacrifice is merely done for its own sake, then utilitarianism sees it as a waste. The kind
of sacrifice Mill finds reasonable is the kind which produces consequences that benefit more people
other than oneself. He reiterates that utilitarianism not only promotes the happiness of the agent but of
all concerned who potentially experience the consequences of the agent's act. A person must be as
impartial as possible in weighing his/her happiness against that of others. He ascribes to Jesus Christ's
teaching to love one's neighbor as oneself, expressing how utilitarianism values the other person as
much as oneself. In an ideal setting, the interest of an individual is achieved in harmony with the good of
the whole of society. Utilitarianism upholds the belief that a truly moral person always tries to
incorporate the good of others in every decision he/she makes. Thus, in the case of self-sacrifice, it is
morally acceptable so long as it is done for the sake of the good of the greatest number.

To the objection that social concern is a rare motive for action

The last objection Mill deals with in his treatise is the objection relating to the question whether people
actually have society in mind whenever they choose a course of action. For Mill, a distinction must be
made between the motives and the consequences of one's actions with respect to which of the two is
the basis for judging an act to be moral or not. From his perspective, it really is too much to expect that
people always act from the motive of their duty towards others. Most actions are not done for this
reason. One must distinguish between the rule of action and the motive. If one saves a fellow human
person from being tricked by a conman for the sake of gaining favors from the act and not simply
because one is motivated by duty to look after one's neighbor, the morality of the act is not diminished
in the least. In other words, from the utilitarian perspective, the motive has nothing to do with the
morality of an action. Of course, it is ideal to always have the good in mind in every decision, but as far
as morality is concerned, the act itself is moral so long as it promotes the good of the greatest number.
The motive says something about the kind of person doing the act, but it does not say anything about
the morality of the action one decides to undertake. In addition, Mill says that a great number of actions
are meant to benefit individuals rather than the greater majority. Given the fact that not everyone is in a
position to have one's actions directly affect the happiness of the whole in terms of public utility, Mill
asserts that one needs only attend to the good of the few who shall potentially reap the benefits of one's
actions. In short, one cannot fault someone for having a small sphere of influence for this does not
curtail her capacity to still put the welfare of others (no matter how few) over his/hers.

Thought Experiment-The Trolley Problem

A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if the trolley
proceeds on its present course. Ben is standing next to a large switch that can divert the trolley onto a
different track. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to divert the trolley onto another
track that only has one worker on it. If Ben diverts the trolley onto the other track, this one worker will
die, but the other five workers will be saved.

This is a classic ethical dilemma formulated by Philippa Foot in 1967. Examine and reflect on this
scenario. What would be the moral course of action for a utilitarian in this case?

The Ultimate Sanction

Although external sanctions like those that emanate from social and supernatural sources enforce the
utilitarian principle, they do not compel one to follow it. By themselves, because they are only truly
bound to a principle if they cannot bind persons fully to any moral principle feel in themselves that they
have to abide by it. Ultimately, according to Mill, it is man's "feeling for humanity" that constitutes the
ultimate sanction of the principle of utility. This is the internal sanction of the principle of utility.

One of the external sanctions that provide the impetus for moral conduct is one's fear of displeasing God
(if one believes in a God). A believer's moral compass is oftentimes determined by his/her desire to
please his/her creator, for he/ she feels that he/she owes Him this much, seeing as He is considered to
be the source of everything that exists. If one trusts in the goodness of God, then those who think that a
good act is that which promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number must also believe that
this is what God approves. The other external sanction is the fear of disapproval from other people. Mill
says that such a fear is allayed when one understands that one's actions coincide with the desire of
others, so long as one estimates that one's action contributes to the general happiness. If one does what
is right because one fears the she will be punished by society in whatever way, be it legal (fined,
imprisoned) legal (social ostracization, marginalization), Mill finds that such a motive is compatible with
the doctrine of utility for it essentially aims for the happiness of the greatest number. Such a motive
takes into account the opinions of others with before one acts and may, therefore, be seen as coherent
with respect to what is advantageous or disadvantageous for them the principle of utility.

Mill then proceeds to explain that although external sanctions do promote the welfare of the whole, it is
still the internal sanction of conscience that is considered as the ultimate sanction of morality. This is the
feeling associated with one's violation of duty towards others when one selfishly looks after one's
happiness exclusively. Conscience is the internalization of the external sanctions of morality that feels
remorse each time one acts without considering first the effect or consequences of one's actions in
other people's lives. This feeling of fellowship with other people is what ultimately drives one to
persevere to be moral. As a social being, the human person has the ability to gauge the morality of
his/her action in the context of preserving the harmony between his/her pleasures and the pleasures of
others. In the end, one can only sleep well at night when he/she has a clear conscience, that is, when
one is certain that he/she did everything to promote not just his/her own happiness, but that of
everyone's.

Conclusion
Utilitarianism espouses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which states that actions are right when they
promote the happiness of the greatest number and wrong if they cause the opposite. The principle of
utility judges the morality of actions based on consequences. If an action leads to the happiness of more
persons, then that action is considered moral. However, Mill makes an important distinction between
the quantity and quality of happiness or pleasure. He holds that utilitarianism is not only interested in
promoting the happiness of the most number of persons, but it also takes into account the kind or
quality of happiness an action is likely to produce. In other words, if one aims to do the right thing, one
also has to take into account what kind of happiness one's action will bring into the lives of others.

Pleasures of the mind are considered higher than the pleasures of the flesh. With respect to matters of
deliberation on what forms of pleasure are to be regarded as higher than others, Mill points to the
opinions of competent judges who have both knowledge and experience of a wide spectrum of
pleasures which make them capable of truly appreciating the differences and varying degrees and
qualities of pleasures. The aim of utilitarianism, therefore, is to promote a moral way of life that
considers the welfare of the community and not just one's own, such that Mill declares that it is the
internal sanction of conscience which serves as the ultimate sanction of the principle of utility. To think
of the consequences of one's actions (both quantitatively and qualitatively) in the context of the
community is to be moral. To contribute to the pleasure of others and to decrease the measure of pain
that afflicts them is one's realization of a truly moral life.

So far, you have learned moral theories that are Western in their origin. In the next section, you will be
introduced to how the East envisions a moral way of life. Gandhi's dictum of non-violence, Buddha's path
to enlightenment, and Confucian ethics are all discussed in the hope of expanding and deepening your
historical appreciation of moral questions.