The “Greatest Happiness Principle”, claims that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (pp.1-2). In doing so, Mill clarifies the definition of pain and pleasure, focusing on the latter with quality rather than quantity. Despite Utility being correlated to short-term pleasures and overall lightheartedness, Mill claims that utilitarians actually even prioritize mental pleasures more than physical—due to its longevity, safety and cost. Although admittingly, there are certain pleasures that are shallow, followers of this practice also acknowledge the scale of quality regarding pleasures. There are higher and lower level qualities; Mill deciphers them based on the majority’s favor, regardless of “moral obligation”, along with another clear indicator being if one pleasure would continue to be chosen over another, despite the former bringing more discomfort and even if the latter was of higher quantity. Regardless of the personal benefit or intention of an action from a person’s “nobleness”, Mill argues that other people are bound to benefit from it as well—with “the world in general [being] immensely [better] by it” as well (p.4). 

It’s been argued that the concept is degrading toward mankind, since it’s assumed that the meaning of life is solely toward gaining pleasure—claiming it’s a belief only worthy of a pig. Despite this, Mill contends how these opposing views are actually the ones with the disrespectful attitude. In other words, he explains how the pleasures of a pig and a person are incomparable, since these two species require different types and levels of pleasure—with humans being of superiority, once being exposed to those higher capabilities. Having knowledge of those higher qualities, no one in their right mind would rather choose to live as a different, lower standard kind. In Mill’s words, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (p.3). The misconception of Utilitarianism being a “pig philosophy” possibly stems from the assumption that pleasure is defined by fleeting physical pleasures.

He describes how as people get older, they tend to get more selfish and lazier—but they don’t voluntarily choose the lower pleasure. In actuality, these people end up not having the capacity in order to be able to choose the higher level one, so instead they devote their time and effort toward the other. Their future career and way of life, and their socioeconomic upbringing dictates whether they have “capacity for the nobler feelings”—causing them to resort to the more convenient option. Since they don’t have the time, nor the opportunity in participating in these superior pleasures, people often lose their aspirations for them. 

Honestly, I do agree with how people can be prone to laziness and selfishness, but I disagree about the idea that once that occurs, there’s no turning back and their life is set in stone. In my opinion, people always have a choice, and sure, their upbringing plays a factor in the amount of opportunities open to them, but that doesn’t mean people born into poverty or other setbacks are definitively incapable of rising from them and seeking higher pleasures. If anything, it might even motivate them more and gain more aspirations from it, rather than someone born into wealth and unappreciative of the superior pleasures, but that’s obviously the more optimistic viewpoint of it. At some point in their life, people will recognize that there’s more to life than their current enjoyment, either through what they see on social media or the news; they’ll form long term ambitions, believing that if they were able to do it, then they can too.

(611 words)