Utilitarianism revised

Mill was not comfortable with the utilitarian principle that his father and Bentham had advocated. His revision of the utilitarian principle is based on the introduction of qualitative factor in the element of happiness. For Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, utility was ensuring greatest or maximum happiness for greatest number, a quantitative matter. Bentham’s seven-point felicific calculus discussed above was inadequate to capture happiness in terms of moral and self-development of the individual, a qualitative matter.

We may summarize Mill’s argument on moving away from narrow utilitarianism to a broad, qualitative utilitarianism as follows:

• The principle of utility, happiness and search for pleasure, as advocated by Bentham and James Mill, remains the central theme of Mill’s argument. As Joad has pointed out, ‘Mill in common with other utilitarian thinkers … insists on regarding every political question in terms of the happiness or unhappiness of human beings …’³³ Logically, then business of government becomes promotion of happiness of individual.
• But for Mill, happiness is not equal to calculation of pleasure in terms of Bentham’s seven-point calculus alone. For Mill, some pleasures are of higher quality than others. This presents a departure from the principle of utility advocated by Bentham.
• By arguing this way, Mill admits that pleasure, which is higher in quality, e.g., freedom of speech and expression, opinion and belief, is worth pursuing and not the principle of utility, i.e., maximum happiness alone. Pleasure greater in quantity may be less in quality and vice-versa. The test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity are the preferences of those who have experienced both pain and pleasure based on self-consciousness and self-observation. They are also best judge to know which is the acutest of pain and most intense of pleasure.
• This revision is exemplified in Mill’s argument that ‘it is better to be human beings dissatisfied than pigs satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’.³⁴ And if the fool or the pig is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides. Thus, qualitative happiness can be known only by those who have experienced both pain and pleasure and also two of these in different degrees.
• The upshot of Mill’s argument and qualitative element is that the ‘individual must become what they can be’—Mill introduces the element of ‘self-realization’.
• Thus, ‘one pleasure is better than the other if it promotes the sense of dignity in man’. For Mill, self-realization, promotion of dignity and realizing moral ends become the goal. The State must then help the individual to pursue these moral ends. Thus, in addition to protecting the individual against the state, Mill also promotes self-development of man. Based on Mill’s formulation of moral development, Macpherson characterizes Mill’s view of democratic set-up as ‘developmental democracy’.³⁵

At this stage, we can infer that by introducing the qualitative aspect in the Utilitarian principle, Mill has introduced positive liberty and positive functions of the state. The State now has to help the individual in self-realization and moral development, though it has to be protective and limited.