Pleasure: A Comparison of Mill and Plato’s Views
Human action should aim at its proper end. Everywhere, people aim for pleasure, wealth, and honor. Although these ends have some value, they are not the chief good for which people should strive. To be an ultimate end, an act must be self-sufficient and final and attainable by people. Perhaps all people will agree that happiness is the only end that meets all the requirements for the ultimate goal of human action. Indeed, as Plato and John Stuart Mill have argued, we choose pleasure, wealth, and honor only because we believe they can lead to the attainment of happiness.
John Stuart Mill was one of the philosophers who pondered the meaning of happiness in a person’s life. His most notable contribution to assessing sensory experiences is the theory of utilitarianism. This theory states that moral actions are those that result in the greatest good for the largest number of people (Mill, 1901).
The moral and political views of John Stuart Mill had a significant impact on the course of Western philosophy. His theory of utilitarianism has captured the imagination of generations due to its simplicity and ability to confirm what most people already believe; that everyone desires pleasure and happiness. Mill argued that achieving the greatest amount of pleasure while minimizing pain is essential for societal goodness, benefiting society as a whole (Crisp, 1997).
Mill wrote his famous essay on Utilitarianism with the purpose of defending the principle of utility. This principle was taught to him by his father and Jeremy Bentham. However, in the process of defending it, Mill made significant modifications to this theory. As a result, his version of utilitarianism differed from Bentham’s in several ways. Despite this, Mill’s definition of utility remained consistent with what Bentham had taught. In his essay, Mill wrote:
The creed that accepts Utility, or the greatest Happiness Principle, as the foundation of morals holds that actions are right in proportion to their ability to promote happiness and wrong if they tend to produce unhappiness. In this context, happiness refers to pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is characterized by pain and a lack of pleasure (Mill, 1901).
Plato’s Gorgias is a comprehensive examination of morality, centered around an investigation into the nature of art, rhetoric, power, self-control, and justice. This dialogue is closely connected to and reinforces Plato’s significant philosophical project of defining human existence and excellence. (Cooper, 1997)
Pleasures, according to Mill, differ from each other not only in quantity but also in kind and quality. He aligned himself with Plato, who was also criticized for emphasizing pleasure as the ultimate goal of all behavior. Plato responded by stating that it was actually his accusers who had a degrading view of human nature because they believed that people were only capable of experiencing pleasures similar to those of swine (Cooper, 1997). However, Mill argued that these assumptions were clearly untrue since human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification” (Mill, 1901).
The pleasures of the intellect and imagination hold a higher value than the pleasures of mere sensation. Initially, Mill developed the notion of higher pleasures as a response to critics of utilitarianism. However, his concern over higher pleasures led to criticism of Plato’s view of utility (Cooper, 1997). For Mill, when faced with a choice between pleasures, the mere quantity produced by an act was secondary. For instance, if someone is familiar with both a specific intellectual pleasure and a specific pleasure of sensation and they prefer the intellectual pleasure, this demonstrates its superiority (Crisp, 1997).
Mill believed that the qualitative aspect of pleasure was just as empirical as the quantitative element emphasized by Plato. However, Mill went even further than Plato by basing the qualitative difference between pleasures on the structure of human nature. He focused on certain human faculties that were necessary for true happiness and goodness to be achieved. (Parducci, 1995)
According to Mill, pleasures should be evaluated based on their quality rather than quantity. However, his perspective on qualitative pleasures presents a significant issue with the pleasure principle as a whole. If we must consider the quality of pleasures, then pleasure itself cannot serve as the moral standard. In other words, if genuine happiness can only be achieved through utilizing our higher faculties to their fullest extent, then ethical behavior is not about seeking pleasure but rather fulfilling our human potential (Crisp, 1997).
Mill’s version of utilitarianism differs from others in three ways. First, he prioritizes the higher quality of happiness over a mere quantity of pleasure. This means that Mill rejects the notion that pleasures and pains can be measured or calculated. According to him, there is no way to measure either the quantity or quality of pleasures. Whenever we have to choose between two pleasures, we can only express a preference wisely if we have experienced both possibilities. Instead of calculating, people simply express a preference, and apart from this attitude of preference, there is no other tribunal (Crisp, 1997).
In Mill’s theory, there is a second difference regarding when we should consult the utilitarian guideline. Plato suggests that for every action we take, we must consider whether it produces a greater balance of happiness or unhappiness. However, this can be tedious and could halt our lives if we paused to calculate the outcome of various actions (Cooper, 1997). On the other hand, according to Mill, we rarely need to consider the consequences of our specific actions. Instead, we should follow general moral rules such as those against killing, stealing and lying while going about our lives. These rules have been tested throughout human civilization to determine whether they facilitate general happiness when followed; hence they are trustworthy (Crisp, 1997). Occasionally though following these tried-and-true moral rules may present problems as in cases where one has to choose between two possible moral rules like providing for your family and not stealing when you are poor and your family is starving. In such cases resolving conflicts involves determining which course of action would bring about the most happiness.
However, the principle of utilitarianism is founded on the well-being of society, which creates a dilemma when considering the direct relationship between moral laws and happiness (Wilson, 1993). To illustrate this point, imagine finding oneself in the central square of a South American village with twenty natives tied up against a wall. The captain holding them questions you and establishes that you arrived there by accident. He explains that these natives are protesting the government and are about to be killed as an example to other potential protestors. The captain offers you the privilege of killing one native yourself; if you accept, the other natives will be spared. If you refuse, he will kill them all. Choosing to take the gun and kill only one native would be making a moral decision according to Utilitarianism’s Principle of Utility which states that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote unhappiness” (Utilitarianism, 589).
According to Mill, happiness is defined as receiving pleasure, while unhappiness is defined as receiving pain. Pleasure and the absence of pain are the only things that are desirable and therefore considered good. Actions can be classified as good if they lead to a higher level of general happiness and bad if they decrease it. By a higher level of general happiness, Mill means pleasure that is both intellectual and sensual (Mill, 1901).
Utilitarians believe that an act is morally right if it leads to the best consequences. A moral action increases the total amount of higher pleasure in a situation.
In philosophical context, the pleasure-pain principle is what makes Mill an act-utilitarian, similar to Plato. They both believe that morality involves maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.
In summary, Mill’s point is that each person desires only their own happiness. Plato believed that the chaos in Athenian society was due to most people failing to recognize the importance of living a virtuous life based on integrity and temperance (Cooper, 1997). However, I personally agree with John Stuart Mill that general happiness is the only thing desired by all for its own sake. The only way to determine if something is desirable is if it is desired. Therefore, general happiness is the only thing desired in itself. As such, I agree with both Plato and Mill that actions should be judged based on their ability to promote general happiness.
References
Cooper, John M. (1997). Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Crisp, Roger. (1997). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill’s Utilitarianism. Routledge.
Mill, John Stuart. (1901). Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green and Co.
Parducci, Allen (1995) wrote a book titled Happiness, Pleasure, and Judgment: The Contextual Theory and Its Applications” published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stephen, Leslie. (1900). The English Utilitarians. Duckworth and Co.
Wilson, James Q. (1993) wrote an article titled What Is Moral, and How Do We Know It?” for Commentary magazine.
