John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism | Responses to Criticisms of Utilitarianism | Core Concepts 

I'm writing a master's thesis that considers utilitarian principles, especially as developed and defended by Mill (specifically in Utilitarianism), but rooted in Bentham (of course). Mill addresses, directly or indirectly, many criticisms. One I do not see addressed, however, isn't simply that it is laborious or complicated, but that it is a rational impossibility to carry out, and we are only deluding ourselves to believe otherwise (almost akin to Kant's criticism of prior metaphysics in his Prolegomena). Specifically, we only know what is, not what might have been. And in knowing what is (insofar as we do), our understanding of its causes is, at best, only partial. In other words, I may think that act X resulted in state Y, and to all appearances this is true, but the reality is more likely that hundreds, thousands or more particular acts resulted in state Y. The degree to which any particular act actually contributed to the socially-approved state or whether that state could or would have come about anyway is far from certain. Why should any one contributor get more of the credit than any other? Further, and more importantly, we have no real way of knowing what the ultimate consequences would be of any particular act or non-action. Immediate consequences can be anticipated, usually, with some element of confidence, but I don't know what the more distant ones will be -- good or bad -- nor do I (nor does society in general) really have any way of evaluating whether the current (or ultimate) state is better or worse than it might have been had I made different choices. For just one example, suppose I get into an altercation and kill my opponent. It turns out that, unbeknownst to anyone, he was a serial rapist/murderer. Even though people might consider me a murderer, my act was a good one in that increased society's net happiness. But suppose he was someone who, later in life, might have done something (or already was doing something) incredibly good for society, or maybe his yet-unborn child would have done so, had I not killed his father-to-be. Then the exact same act would be bad. But the real problem is that we would likely never really know -- we could only pretend to know whether the act was good or bad, based on very partial information and speculation.

new Mill Core Concept video -- more of these on Mill coming next week as well

Well, you can't make cogent objections to a theory until you actually do understand the theory -- since they've likely been already addressed by the work in which you find the theory articulated. So, I'd suggest you read Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation -- or even watch the videos I've done on them. Then read Mill's Utilitarianism -- or watch those videos. Then see if you've got the same objections

Yes, that is a dynamic that poses some real problems for Utilitarianism -- Jacques Lacan in fact counterposes De Sade to Bentham in his sessions on the Ethics of Psychoanalysis. Why? Because De Sade is in his own way a devoted hedonist -- but he says: "I get what you're saying, Utilitarians -- but my pleasure (and that of many others) lies precisely in other's pain. Bentham, in the last analysis, doesn't have much to say in response to that, nor I think does Mill

I was reading a book on the Japanese philosopher Yukichi Fukuzawa and he cites John Stuart Mill as a big part of his work in establishing a western ideology and implementing it in Japan after the Meiji Restoration. Yukichi Fukuzawa was huge in Japan and his name is far more known in Japan then Mill is here in England. My question is why is Yukichi Fukuzawa a complete unknown in the west compared to John Stuart Mill in the west. Thanks for the great content as there always something to take from your videos in terms of philosophical knowledge.

Thanks for that. I do like Mill, he was a very interesting writer I think, even if your not totally persuaded by Utilitarianism. I really like some parts of the theory though, despite my initial reluctance. I use it in day to day ethical considerations, quite often. I find it quite a motivating ethical theory. I've been reading Sidgwick recently, he's pretty good too, but doesn't seem to get mentioned as much.

Utilitarianism provides a code of moral values, so asking which one it refers to is a mistaken question. In fact, Bentham and Mill flip that question, trying to demonstrate that any other moral theory -- so long as it is in fact a moral theory -- actually presupposes Utilitarianism. Mill addresses the "end justifies the means" criticism explicitly in his work Utilitarianism. Invalid? I'd say rather misplaced.

Hi Professor Gregory, I absolute love your videos. you responded to objection against the impracticality of Utilitarianism with the analogy of Christians. 'Christians don't consult the bible for everything they do but we say they act like a christian, so why can be level this criticism to utilitarians.' Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, whereas Christian ethics is deontological. by virtue of this, can we not distinguish the analogy from the criticism? If what is good is prescribed in the ten commandments and broadened throughout scripture, one can have a pretty accurate idea of what a Christian would do, but I feel the utilitarian does not have this same recourse. They are required to consider so much, and almost all actions of a "utilitarian" can likely be critcised by a utilitarian lense.

Thanks for posting these videos professor Sadler! They are awesome! Would you share your views on Utilitarianism. If there are any objections you have against it, what would they be?

No, Sidgwick is unfortunately ignored for the most part these days. Too bad. . . .

Great work

Great video 👍