An Objection: "To suppose that life has ... no higher end than pleasure—no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit—they designate as utterly mean and groveling, as a doctrine worthy only of swine" (p. 7c).

The Doctrine of Higher Pleasures

“It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that, while in estimating all other things quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasure should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.” (Ch. 2, p. 8)

The Doctrine of Competent Judges

“If I am asked what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.” (Ch. 2, pp. 8-9)

Other Objections with replies

1. A moral act is one done from duty, one with a certain type of motive.

Reply: "the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent" (18a)

2. Emergency Room w/5 victims and innocent patient.

Reply: People would never go to hospitals, people would be scared, ...

3. Fanatical Majority: e.g., Utilitarianism says Romans should have games torturing Christians

Reply: This would promote a more violent society in general.

4. Utilitarianism allows lying, stealing, and killing if it increases overall happiness. But these are rules we should never violate!

Reply: These acts seldom would actually increase overall happiness, but we all agree that sometimes we should do these things.

Mill's Argument for Utilitarianism (Ch. 4)

Each person desires her own happiness

So each person’s happiness is a good to that person

Therefore, the general happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons.

Objection 1: Equivocating on ‘good’. At first it is used to mean what a person desires or what is in their self-interest; then it is used for what is moral, i.e. what they ought to do.

Objection 2: Just because you establish something for each member doesn’t mean it holds for the group. Cf., each person thinks they should run the country; so the group thinks the group should run the country; eating a human liver is what is healthiest for a person, so each person eating the liver of another person is best for the general health.