John Stuart Mill

Question 1

Key concepts:

Answer 1

1. Rule Utilitarianism
2. Qualitative approach (not just quantitative approach) to pleasure
3. The Harm principle
4. Not lying example
5. Objection to this example
6. Objection to the objection

Question 2

Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 2

Mill argues that moral judgments should not be made case by case (as in Bentham’s act utilitarianism) but by appeal to rules. A rule is justified if, when generally followed, it maximises happiness for the greatest amount of people.

Question 3

Qualitative approach

Answer 3

There’s more to life than just physical pleasures, in fact, pleasures and happiness have different qualities. For example, It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

Question 4

The Harm Principle

Answer 4

The idea that the only legitimate reason to restrict an individual’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. This ensures that the pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number does not lead to oppressive outcomes.

Question 5

Not lying example

Answer 5

Rule utilitarianism provides a prescriptive argument that we ought to not lie. Indeed, consider the murderer at the door example. The rule utilitarian would decide to not lie about his friend’s location, because otherwise, a world where lying is commonplace is not desirable for him.

Question 6

Objection to the example

Answer 6

There are several objections to this prescriptive argument. Consider the following argument, the “not lying” rule is justified not because we know that this will maximise utility (we cannot know without empirical evidence) but because it is not rational to have a society in which lying is commonplace. Therefore, this is a deontological belief and not a utilitarian one.

Question 7

Objection to the attempt to object the Objection

Answer 7

If rule utilitarianism attempts to dodge this accusation, then it falls back into Act Utilitarianism. For example, it is not hard to imagine a scenario where an act which breaks the rules leads to greater utility — lying to a murderer about a friend’s location. In this case, we use act-utilitarianism to produce greater utility than rule-utilitarianism: therefore, act-utilitarianism trumps rule-utilitarianism.