John Stuart Mill's Arguments Against Utilitarianism

In Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill responds to the objection against utilitarianism that it is a doctrine worthy of the swine since it “bases everything on pleasure” (4) with two rebuttals, each sufficient on their own. First, although utilitarianism urges humans to make their lives as pleasurable as possible, the fact of the matter is that what humans need to be happy in life is not the same as what pigs need to do the same, given that humans and pigs are inherently different in their needs and desires. Second, Mill makes a distinction in the types or qualities of pleasure, giving a lower value to physical pleasures and a higher value to mental pleasures, claiming that anyone widely experienced in both types tends to favor a life devoted to the latter. To start, I will first expand on Mill’s two rebuttals so that his reasoning becomes clear to the reader. The goal of this paper will then be to show, by reconstructing his argument and analyzing its weak points, that Mill’s attempt to defend

Those who oppose utilitarianism claim it holds pleasure and safety from pain as the only thing desirable as ends. In other words, they find the reduction of human desire to simply pleasure unconvincing and maintain that there are certainly more ‘noble’ things to desire than pleasure itself. To even acknowledge the opposite is to suggest that humans operate in the same manner as pigs and that it is all they are capable of. From this perspective, the notion that utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy only of swine becomes more clearly defined. For Mill to discredit this belief, he must be able to prove that there are pleasures noble enough to be desired by humans, even though not all pleasures are noble by nature. If there are indeed pleasures of a noble nature, it must be that these pleasures are by far the most