In his work, Utilitarianism, J S Mill asserts that, "happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end." He goes on to offer a "proof" of the principle of utility (which may be defined as 'the greatest good for the greatest number'), through which he hopes to show that the moral worth of an action consists in its conduciveness or otherwise to the general happiness. In this essay, I will attempt to show that Mill's proof is unsound and that unrestricted utilitarianism is an undesirable moral doctrine at both societal and personal levels.

At the commencement of his enquiry into "of what sort of proof the principle of utility is susceptible", Mill declares that, "to be incapable of proof by reasoning is common to all first principles, to the first premises of our knowledge, as well as to those of our conduct" (Ch.4). Rather than present a rational argument in favour of utilitarianism, then, Mill asks his reader to reflect upon their inner motives for action and suggests that these are based upon a desire for one's own happiness. "This, however, being a fact, we have

at all, as it could not absolutely adhere to the principle of utility.

Problems with Mill's attempted proof

J S Mill, Utilitarianism (Internet: URL= 'http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/mill/util/index.html')

As Rachels states , utilitarianism might also lead to distributive injustice. For instance, if one distributes wealth so that everyone was equally happy, one is obliged to prefer a situation wherein everybody is moderately happy to a situation wherein half the people are moderately happy and half very happy; whereas, if one distributes wealth so as to maximise either total or average utility, one must prefer a situation wherein a person (P) is extremely happy and the rest barely happy to a situation wherein everyone is moderately happy, as long as the happiness of P greatly outweighs the dissatisfaction of everybody else. Yet both preferred situations seem unfair.

Secondly, the move from steps three to four in Mill's argument seems unwarranted - at a personal level, the fact that it is desirable to pursue one's happiness suggests that one would be right to pursue it even at the expense of the happiness of others. Mill's response to this egoistic challenge is that, where the interests of one conflict with the interests of the many, the latter carries much greater moral weight. However, if happiness is the sole good, then surely one would always be right to attempt to pursue it. Although the social destruction such egoism would cause would probably lead to greater misery for all, rather than the attainment of anyone's happiness, this observation is contingent upon experience; as such, it cannot detract from the logical force behind the statement, 'if one's happiness is always desirable, then one should always pursue it.'

not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good", he asserts; further, as "each person's happiness is a good to that person", the "general happiness, therefore, [is] a good to the aggregate of all persons" (Ch.4). Mill then goes on to demonstrate that all other motivating forces behind human action - the desire for wealth, for power, for fame, or to act virtuously - are particular !

Indeed, it is easy to see how a strict adherence to the principle of utility would result in the most inhuman conduct: as James Rachels points out in his Introduction to Ethical Theory 2, "a thoroughgoing utilitarian could hardly be a loyal friend, for he would have no special concern for friends... She would not be a loving mother, for she would have no special concern for her children." One would also have no special concern for oneself: thus, the utilitarian should deem it right, were he past the age of earning, to give all his money and possessions to charity and allow himself to die or to beg for a living, if by so doing he would be maximising the general happiness; however, such drastic action seems supererogatory and the person who instigated it would normally be considered either saintly or insane. To the response that one might introduce a limited utilitarianism which did not require such sacrifices, I should reply that such a thing would not be proper utilitarianism!

In like manner, minority groups might have no rights in a utilitarian regime. For example, was society largely violently anti-Semitic, the strict utilitarian should endorse the existence of Nazi-style c

Some common words found in the essay are:
Ethical Theory, Thirdly Moore, BH CH, Ch4 Mill's, Mill's Proof, Utilitarianism Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Ch4 Mill, University Press, principle utility, Philosophy Mill, mill's proof, act promote, situation wherein, university press, oxford university press, own happiness, produce happiness, moderately happy, oxford university, special concern, oxford oxford university, proof principle utility, utilitarianism internet url=, mill's attempted proof,
Approximate Word count = 2292
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)