What do you think?
Rate this book
Utilitarianism and Other Essays
Clear, eloquent and profound, Mill's Utilitarianism has had an enormous influence on moral philosophy and is the idea introduction to ethics.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a reformer who applied the test of utility to the law and politics of his day. Legislators must aim at 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number,' and Bentham explained in minute detail how they might achieve it. John Stuart Mill (1806-73), whose education at the hands of a Benthamite father had ended in emotional collapse, thought Bentham's ideal of human happiness too narrow and set out to reconcile his utilitarian inheritance with his own passionate commitment to freedom, spontaneity and imagination. In his essays on Bentham and Coleridge, and above all in Utilitarianism, Mill balanced the claims of reason and the imagination, justice and expediency, individuality and social well-being in a system of ethics that is as relevant to today's intellectua and moral dilemmas it was to the nineteenth century's.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1863
48 people are currently reading
1432 people want to read
About the author
Jeremy Bentham
993 books301 followersIn 1748, Jeremy Bentham was born in London. The great philosopher, utilitarian humanitarian and atheist began learning Latin at age four. He earned his B.A. from Oxford by age 15 or 16, and his M.A. at 18. His Rationale of Punishments and Rewards was published in 1775, followed by his groundbreaking utilitarian work, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Bentham propounded his principle of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." He worked for political, legal, prison and educational reform. Inheriting a large fortune from his father in 1792, Bentham was free to spend his remaining life promoting progressive causes. The renowned humanitarian was made a citizen of France by the National Assembly in Paris. In published and unpublished treatises, Bentham extensively critiqued religion, the catechism, the use of religious oaths and the bible. Using the pen-name Philip Beauchamp, he co-wrote a freethought treatise, Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind (1822). D. 1832.
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_B...
http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/who
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jeremy_B...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_B...
http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/who
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jeremy_B...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
December 3, 2015
Introduction & Notes
Editor's Note
Jeremy Bentham
--From An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
J. S. Mill
--From A System of Logic
--'Bentham'
--'Coleridge'
--'Whewell on Moral Philosophy'
--Utilitarianism
Further Reading
Index
Editor's Note
Jeremy Bentham
--From An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
J. S. Mill
--From A System of Logic
--'Bentham'
--'Coleridge'
--'Whewell on Moral Philosophy'
--Utilitarianism
Further Reading
Index
March 5, 2013
Read it again in 2013 after reading Dickens' Hard Times just to make sure JSM wasn't as crass as the industrial, totally rationalized society, Utilitarians presented in 'Hard Times'. He wasn't, and so it is still safe for me to still have some affection for Utilitarianism as an ism.
***
Since I hadn't read Mill since college, I figured it was high time to revisit his famous ethical essay on, and defense of, social utility, justice and the greatest-happiness principle. I remember loving the clarity and simplicity of Mill's arguments when I was first exposed to this essay in college, and the central ideas of utilitarianism still resonate with me 15 years later.
***
Since I hadn't read Mill since college, I figured it was high time to revisit his famous ethical essay on, and defense of, social utility, justice and the greatest-happiness principle. I remember loving the clarity and simplicity of Mill's arguments when I was first exposed to this essay in college, and the central ideas of utilitarianism still resonate with me 15 years later.
August 21, 2023
Although I cannot agree with Utilitarianism, I definitely can respect it. The mere idea of rationalising and objectifying morality is a fascinating one. One of the many endeavours to help humanity mathematically measure ethics. Whilst I do not entirely believe it to have been successful, it's very interesting how it fits into its time frame; "God is dead" and man is looking for new morals to build society on, JSM offers a proposition. Fascinating!
October 29, 2018
I read the letter that Mill wrote on capital punishment for the unit my ethics class did on the death penalty. I was slightly surprised at how the author felt about the death penalty, for it, due to how outspoken and ahead of his time he was on other topics like the suffrage of women. It showed just how much an opinion could differ even on those who could be considered forward thinkers.
August 1, 2018
Review of the (abridged) Bentham essay only:
Yeah. I dug this. I actually did not have any quibbles with it at all. That's a rare one for me. Interested to see how Mill develops the philosophy.
Yeah. I dug this. I actually did not have any quibbles with it at all. That's a rare one for me. Interested to see how Mill develops the philosophy.
August 7, 2022
While I like many aspects of Bentham’s and Mill’s views, I found their presentation in this form to be rather tedious to read. Maybe I went in with false expectations, but I have to say that I simply don’t care what one of them thinks about the other’s character or what either of them think is the purpose of poetry and there is quite a bit of this kind of stuff in this book. It feels like only a minority of the text actually deals with the titular utilitarianism, which is disappointing, as this was the reason for which I wanted to read it. (Probably the “and Other Essays” in the title should have given me a hint…)
I do have to say, however, that this book has made me think more than most others I have read. It is thought-provoking and highly interesting in those parts which get into the actual details of utilitarianism. So much so, in fact, that I found it difficult to stay focused on the text, as my mind often started to wander off into its own arguments and thoughts on utilitarianism based on what I had just read. The style of writing doesn’t help either when trying to stay focused, as the text seems to be targeted at an exclusively intellectual audience. In addition to long and complex sentences throughout the book, there are several places where Mill uses foreign words without providing a translation, in two or three cases even in foreign alphabets without a Latin transcription. Also, the lack of chapters or at least section breaks makes it really hard to find good places to take a break from reading.
Besides the Bentham and Mill essays, there is also an introduction, as always in the Penguin Classics series, which in this case reads as though the author wanted to place it at the end of the book. It discusses very concrete aspects of the following text as though it was assumed that the reader would already be familiar with it. In retrospect, I would say that one should read the introduction after having read the essays (if at all).
If you’re strongly interested in philosophy, this collection of essays is probably a better and more concise presentation of Bentham’s and Mill’s views than reading their full works. For anyone with only a casual interest I would recommend finding some modern summary instead of reading the original texts.
I do have to say, however, that this book has made me think more than most others I have read. It is thought-provoking and highly interesting in those parts which get into the actual details of utilitarianism. So much so, in fact, that I found it difficult to stay focused on the text, as my mind often started to wander off into its own arguments and thoughts on utilitarianism based on what I had just read. The style of writing doesn’t help either when trying to stay focused, as the text seems to be targeted at an exclusively intellectual audience. In addition to long and complex sentences throughout the book, there are several places where Mill uses foreign words without providing a translation, in two or three cases even in foreign alphabets without a Latin transcription. Also, the lack of chapters or at least section breaks makes it really hard to find good places to take a break from reading.
Besides the Bentham and Mill essays, there is also an introduction, as always in the Penguin Classics series, which in this case reads as though the author wanted to place it at the end of the book. It discusses very concrete aspects of the following text as though it was assumed that the reader would already be familiar with it. In retrospect, I would say that one should read the introduction after having read the essays (if at all).
If you’re strongly interested in philosophy, this collection of essays is probably a better and more concise presentation of Bentham’s and Mill’s views than reading their full works. For anyone with only a casual interest I would recommend finding some modern summary instead of reading the original texts.
April 1, 2020
The core proposition of Utilitarian ethical theory is that all pain and suffering that is unnecessary is bad. When we start with this premise, the following premise that follows is that causing good is better than causing pain, since pain is bad. The unstated premise in this theory is that life is better than death and that life should be preserved because death is worse than life or, at least, bad. It is presumed that this is agreed upon when arguing for this view. Certainly, some nihilists would disagree with Mill’s principle that healthy pleasure. The pleasure in this argument is classified as “healthy” because hedonists may smuggle in various acts that do not produce the highest amount of pleasure. Thus, this pleasure must be healthy.
Mill's idea can be summarized as:
Premise 1: Healthy pleasure, not happiness, is the highest good in life.
P2: Unnecessary suffering is the opposite of healthy pleasure.
P3: All healthy humans feel pain and suffering.
P4: All unnecessary pain and suffering are bad.
P5: Doing good results in pleasure.
P6: Doing good is better than doing bad because doing bad causes pain and suffering.
P7: All healthy humans deserve to feel pleasure rather than pain.
Conclusion: Thus, we should maximize good by doing the most good for the highest number of people.
Mill's idea can be summarized as:
Premise 1: Healthy pleasure, not happiness, is the highest good in life.
P2: Unnecessary suffering is the opposite of healthy pleasure.
P3: All healthy humans feel pain and suffering.
P4: All unnecessary pain and suffering are bad.
P5: Doing good results in pleasure.
P6: Doing good is better than doing bad because doing bad causes pain and suffering.
P7: All healthy humans deserve to feel pleasure rather than pain.
Conclusion: Thus, we should maximize good by doing the most good for the highest number of people.
November 27, 2022
All essays were good. Bentham's was fun but Mill steals the show with 'Utilitarianism'. It makes me angry to know someone can be so insightful.
'Utilitarianism' is both eloquently written and makes as good a case as any for the topic. The work easily earns its place in the canon. Mill is more optimistic and hopeful and compassionate than I expected the famous 'consequentialist' to be. His argument too is sober, nuanced, and thorough. I expected something more dated or simplistic, but it holds up really well.
I enjoyed it much more than expected and highlighted more lines than I didn't. I'd put the writing and the philosophy up there with Hume.
This is another case where I felt for years I didn't need to read the primary material because I already had the gist, and then upon reading was super glad I did.
But am I persuaded to switch camps? No. I still think utilitarian reasoning is inevitable only in the sense that it defines itself to be so. It's about as useful as alegbra in solving questions of morality, and I find those who advocate utilitarian dogma to be deeply misguided (but I digress...)
'Utilitarianism' is both eloquently written and makes as good a case as any for the topic. The work easily earns its place in the canon. Mill is more optimistic and hopeful and compassionate than I expected the famous 'consequentialist' to be. His argument too is sober, nuanced, and thorough. I expected something more dated or simplistic, but it holds up really well.
I enjoyed it much more than expected and highlighted more lines than I didn't. I'd put the writing and the philosophy up there with Hume.
This is another case where I felt for years I didn't need to read the primary material because I already had the gist, and then upon reading was super glad I did.
But am I persuaded to switch camps? No. I still think utilitarian reasoning is inevitable only in the sense that it defines itself to be so. It's about as useful as alegbra in solving questions of morality, and I find those who advocate utilitarian dogma to be deeply misguided (but I digress...)
October 21, 2024
ngl most of the essays were a bit boring but “utilitarianism” itself is so compelling& beautifully argued… especially loved mill’s account of justice and his emphasis on the fact that utilitarianism is fundamentally a progressive doctrine which is against racism, sexism etc.
September 20, 2021
“when people who are tolerably fortunate in their outward lot do not find sufficient enjoyment to make it valuable to them, the cause generally is, caring for nobody but themselves”
October 22, 2015
Brilliant. I am convinced that Bentham, in addition to his philosophy about morals, economics, and the government, might be a good CEO, with John Stuart Mills a natural COO to not only interpret his theories (as he has done), but to run operations for the greatest good for all.
July 9, 2025
Some parts of this collection gave me real food for thought, others felt dry or too abstract. But Mill’s view on pleasure made me pause. Like Epicurus, he challenges the idea that pleasure-based ethics are shallow. He pushes back against the cliché that living for pleasure means living "like a pig": just chasing food, sex, and comfort without depth. For Mill, we’re capable of more than that.
He talks about “the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments”: things like art, poetry, literature, knowledge, deep connection, and a sense of responsibility. He compares lower to higher pleasures: There is a difference between taking pleasure from a drug and getting lost in a truly good book, one fades quickly, the other one can stay with you for years. Mill believes that people who’ve experienced both kinds of pleasure tend to prefer the richer ones, even if they’re more complicated or come with frustration.
Mill doesn’t just say “go after pleasure.” He encourages us to seek a deeper kind of happiness. One that’s not just about avoiding pain, but about developing the capacity to enjoy things that truly matter. He also points out that our relationship to pleasure and pain changes depending on our inner state. He writes:
“With much tranquility, many find that they can be content with very little pleasure; with much excitement, many can reconcile themselves to a considerable quantity of pain.”
To me, that means that when we feel calm and grounded, we don’t need much, even simple things can bring joy. And when we’re fully enjoying or deeply invested in something, we might be able to handle more discomfort. Maybe the more meaning we find in life, the more space we have for the hard parts too. That’s how I understood it, anyway.
He also reminds us that we’re not meant to live only for ourselves. Mill believed our happiness is deeply tied to the happiness of others, and that caring for those around us is part of living well.
At the heart of his philosophy is the idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and measures moral worth by how much an action contributes to that. But even with all his nuance, it still depends on outcomes, and that’s where I hesitate. What if doing the most good for most people comes at the cost of someone else’s well-being? That’s a hard trade-off to make.
Here’s a quick summary of what I took from Mill:
▪ Pleasure isn’t just comfort, it can be thoughtful, creative, and kind.
▪ Once we’ve experienced deeper joys, we tend to value them more than quick pleasures.
▪ Our inner state matters: peace helps us need less, passion helps us bear more.
▪ Real happiness often comes from caring for others, not just ourselves.
▪ What’s useful isn’t what feels good now, it’s what helps us grow.
▪ A good life tries to spread joy widely, not just privately.
3.5⭐️
He talks about “the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments”: things like art, poetry, literature, knowledge, deep connection, and a sense of responsibility. He compares lower to higher pleasures: There is a difference between taking pleasure from a drug and getting lost in a truly good book, one fades quickly, the other one can stay with you for years. Mill believes that people who’ve experienced both kinds of pleasure tend to prefer the richer ones, even if they’re more complicated or come with frustration.
Mill doesn’t just say “go after pleasure.” He encourages us to seek a deeper kind of happiness. One that’s not just about avoiding pain, but about developing the capacity to enjoy things that truly matter. He also points out that our relationship to pleasure and pain changes depending on our inner state. He writes:
“With much tranquility, many find that they can be content with very little pleasure; with much excitement, many can reconcile themselves to a considerable quantity of pain.”
To me, that means that when we feel calm and grounded, we don’t need much, even simple things can bring joy. And when we’re fully enjoying or deeply invested in something, we might be able to handle more discomfort. Maybe the more meaning we find in life, the more space we have for the hard parts too. That’s how I understood it, anyway.
He also reminds us that we’re not meant to live only for ourselves. Mill believed our happiness is deeply tied to the happiness of others, and that caring for those around us is part of living well.
At the heart of his philosophy is the idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and measures moral worth by how much an action contributes to that. But even with all his nuance, it still depends on outcomes, and that’s where I hesitate. What if doing the most good for most people comes at the cost of someone else’s well-being? That’s a hard trade-off to make.
Here’s a quick summary of what I took from Mill:
▪ Pleasure isn’t just comfort, it can be thoughtful, creative, and kind.
▪ Once we’ve experienced deeper joys, we tend to value them more than quick pleasures.
▪ Our inner state matters: peace helps us need less, passion helps us bear more.
▪ Real happiness often comes from caring for others, not just ourselves.
▪ What’s useful isn’t what feels good now, it’s what helps us grow.
▪ A good life tries to spread joy widely, not just privately.
3.5⭐️
September 24, 2023
I've pretty much always been sympathetic with utilitarianism, since I was a kid, but this is the first time I've actually read philosophical theory. Reviewing some of the featured essays:
Introduction: 5/5
Gives crucial context and overview of the primary sources, without supplanting them. In particular, the biographical details are valuable for surmising where Mill's and Bentham's blind spots lie. Without this, I would have been lost as a novice.
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation: 4/5
Unsurprisingly, it takes a bit of time to get acquainted with Bentham's prose, though the point-by-point format helps. Bentham does an excellent job setting the high level foundations for Utilitarianism, and rebutting the most common objections to it. In particular, the listing of phrases people use to evade intellectual scrutiny on their morality is still a good representation of how the vast majority of people operate. Where I am more skeptical of Bentham's approach is his attempts at comprehensiveness in listing the details of pleasure and pain, which I find ad-hoc.
Bentham: 3/5
Mill is unsurprisingly positive on Bentham's fundamental philosophy, and his legal work. A remark on judges imposing their view of the law piecewise due to a lack of other options reminds me a lot of the Warren court. I find his criticisms of Bentham's supposed oversights unconvincing; in particular, his charge that Bentham failed to take into account "national character" a relic of Imperial British thought, as well as his referring to "barbaric peoples". If anything, this essay helped me appreciate how strong Bentham's convictions were.
Whewell on Moral Philosophy: 4.5/5
Mill absolutely eviscerates some truly awful argumentation. The easiest reading on the book, as Mill makes no attempt to hide his contempt for Whewell and the type of conservatism he represented, in contrast to his more sympathetic views of Colerige.
Utilitarianism: 3.5/5
It's easy to see why this is the standard introduction to the philosophy, since Mill is softer in arguing against prevailing deontologist views, and certainly easier to read than Bentham. I think he makes a very convincing argument as to the important role lower level rules have in Utilitarianism, which shifted my more dismissive stance on those. I also think Mill does an excellent job countering arguments in regard to the conflict between Utility and Justice. Nevertheless, my sympathies are greater with Bentham on the smaller details.
Introduction: 5/5
Gives crucial context and overview of the primary sources, without supplanting them. In particular, the biographical details are valuable for surmising where Mill's and Bentham's blind spots lie. Without this, I would have been lost as a novice.
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation: 4/5
Unsurprisingly, it takes a bit of time to get acquainted with Bentham's prose, though the point-by-point format helps. Bentham does an excellent job setting the high level foundations for Utilitarianism, and rebutting the most common objections to it. In particular, the listing of phrases people use to evade intellectual scrutiny on their morality is still a good representation of how the vast majority of people operate. Where I am more skeptical of Bentham's approach is his attempts at comprehensiveness in listing the details of pleasure and pain, which I find ad-hoc.
Bentham: 3/5
Mill is unsurprisingly positive on Bentham's fundamental philosophy, and his legal work. A remark on judges imposing their view of the law piecewise due to a lack of other options reminds me a lot of the Warren court. I find his criticisms of Bentham's supposed oversights unconvincing; in particular, his charge that Bentham failed to take into account "national character" a relic of Imperial British thought, as well as his referring to "barbaric peoples". If anything, this essay helped me appreciate how strong Bentham's convictions were.
Whewell on Moral Philosophy: 4.5/5
Mill absolutely eviscerates some truly awful argumentation. The easiest reading on the book, as Mill makes no attempt to hide his contempt for Whewell and the type of conservatism he represented, in contrast to his more sympathetic views of Colerige.
Utilitarianism: 3.5/5
It's easy to see why this is the standard introduction to the philosophy, since Mill is softer in arguing against prevailing deontologist views, and certainly easier to read than Bentham. I think he makes a very convincing argument as to the important role lower level rules have in Utilitarianism, which shifted my more dismissive stance on those. I also think Mill does an excellent job countering arguments in regard to the conflict between Utility and Justice. Nevertheless, my sympathies are greater with Bentham on the smaller details.
January 25, 2020
Love Bentham's systematic style though paired with his hedonic calculus does come off as absurdly inhuman. Mill, I suppose, is the antidote to this, with more of a practical approach though perhaps philosophically weaker. Both admit there is not ultimate justification to utilitarianism, as there can be no justification for any ethical system. They take from Aristotle happiness being the greatest good. I agree that happiness must be the aim to any moral system and utilitarianism does seem the best approach.
September 19, 2021
I thought it would be easier to grasp, but I found it a difficult read. There are a lot of linguistic gymnastics and really difficult sentence constructions to follow. I skipped the less important essays (I'm normally a cover-to-cover reader, but I just couldn't do it).
Generally, though, I got the gist of it.
I think one needs to read the subject matter more regularly to get more of it.
Generally, though, I got the gist of it.
I think one needs to read the subject matter more regularly to get more of it.
April 5, 2022
Really love the school of thought but found this rather dry with too much emphasis on the detractors of the day and their arguments against. Would've enjoyed far more supplementary analysis from a more current writer.
June 25, 2025
- introduction sucked (omu' meu nu a inteles kant deloc)
- bentham e penal
- A System of Logic e ok, but a bit pointless
- eseurile pupincuriste ale lui mill suntn painfull
- e bine ca s a terminat Utilitarianism pt ca altfel ii dadeam mai putin
dar hei, tre' sa stim si ce zic dusmanii
- bentham e penal
- A System of Logic e ok, but a bit pointless
- eseurile pupincuriste ale lui mill suntn painfull
- e bine ca s a terminat Utilitarianism pt ca altfel ii dadeam mai putin
dar hei, tre' sa stim si ce zic dusmanii
April 1, 2020
Read it too long ago to give an informed opinion now.
April 14, 2022
Dry. But very important. The author writing the forward at least attempts some wit.
Utilitarianism is very dumb but very important. Sigh.
Utilitarianism is very dumb but very important. Sigh.
December 29, 2023
do not talk to me about this i never want to hear another word ushered about the stupid ramblings inscribed in here (and yes i have an exam on it in two weeks)
Read
January 18, 2024total garbage!
January 22, 2024
You don’t have to agree with utilitarianism, but it sure is interesting to read about it. it is fun to explore the thought processes that are behind ideas that still influence our (modern) society.
February 2, 2024
Plugs kinda weird but he's chill
Read
March 8, 20251688Miami เปิดโปsใหญ่แจnให้หนัnๆ แจnเคsดิตฟรี 100 ไม่ต้องฝาnก่อu และโปsพิเศษอีกมากมาย คลิก: heylink.me/1688Miami ✓โปsสมๅชิกใหม่ 80% ✓ฝาnแรnของวัu รัUเพิ่ม 30% ✓โปsทุuน้oย
May 6, 2023
In Utilitarianism and Other Essays, Jeremy Bentham posits that people are motivated solely by the desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. He develops the hedonistic calculus, which allows for alternative courses of action to be chosen based on the greatest amount of pleasure they will bring. Bentham believes that pleasures differ only in quantity and never in quality, equating happiness with pleasure in the absence of pain. Bentham also believes that society should be guided by the principle of usefulness, as it is a congregation of completely egoistic individuals. To maximize society's happiness, it is necessary to maximize the happiness of as many people as possible, and the government can use the hedonistic calculus to create the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number of people. Everyone has the same right to happiness, and people must consider the interests of others and respect their rights for society to function. The law is the guarantor of rights, but it requires a state to enforce it and punish violators.While Bentham's focus on pleasure as the sole measure of human well-being can lead to a narrow view of life, his principles emphasize the importance of social cooperation and interdependence. He fails to recognize the importance of other values and capabilities necessary for a flourishing life, such as love and creativity. His view of society as a congregation of egoistic individuals fails to acknowledge the importance of social relations and responsibilities. His hedonistic calculus fails to take into account the importance of protecting basic capabilities, regardless of one's position in society. Furthermore, Bentham's principles could be used to justify government policies that prioritize pleasure over other values, potentially leading to a society where individual rights and freedoms are suppressed. His view of society as a congregation of egoistic individuals could justify a totalitarian government that punishes those who deviate from social norms. Privacy is also crucial for human flourishing and the development of individual capabilities. The panopticon is a design for a circular prison with a central tower, created by philosopher Bentham, the design aimed to maximize surveillance and control over prisoners by allowing guards to observe them at all times, without the prisoners knowing when they were being watched. It is well known that Bentham’s ideas inspired 1984, Brave New World and We. Regarding the panopticon, a human rights lawyer would argue that it infringes on individuals' rights and dignity, undermines their ability to develop their capabilities, and creates a sense of constant fear or anxiety. The panopticon treats individuals primarily as objects to be monitored and controlled rather than as moral agents with their own inherent worth. In contrast, St. Paul believed that all individuals have the same moral rights and should be treated with dignity and respect. While he encouraged believers to expose the deeds of darkness and bring them into the light, this was within the context of encouraging righteousness and avoiding sinful behavior. It is unlikely that St. Paul would have supported the idea of constant surveillance as a means of enforcing moral behavior.
September 8, 2016
This being, more or less, the first book of ‘raw’ philosophy that I read, proved (pun intended) most utile to my introduction to this particular area.
I’m not going to get into Jeremy Bentham’s Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, because quite honestly I didn’t give much attention to it. Because on the one hand, I didn’t make much sense of it, being the debutant I am, and the fact that it’s a bit passé.
But then comes John Stuart Mill with an exquisite essay on liberty, in which he tackles the concept of human freedom. Mill argues that we are only free through our character itself is formed for us by our consequences. Thus challenging the conventional belief of a complete free will that is constantly at stake in neuroscience.
“Our characters are formed by us as well as for us; and how? Not, in general, by our organisation, nor wholly our by our education, but by our experience; experience of the painful consequences of the character we previously had; or by some strong feeling of admiration or aspiration, accidentally aroused.”
Mill also provides in this same essay a way of conducting morality, or as he called it the Art, from the discourse of science. Which I found quite admirable and convenient.
As far as I’m concerned, both essays of Bentham, a progressive philosopher, and Coleridge, a conservative one, were a philosophical praise and critique of both philosophers. In which Mill succeeds in articulating the feelings of repel I had of Bentham’s intro into words.
Now comes my favourite part, the reason I bought this book in the first place; Utilitarianism. Or as Bentham had put it The Great Happiness Principle, is briefly a pure teleological doctrine with the emphasis of promoting happiness as the means for ends. I found that most sensible. In Mills’ words: “I do not mean to assert that the promotion of happiness should be itself the end of all actions, or even of all rules of action. It is the justification, and ought to be the controller, of all ends, but not itself the sole end.”
Meaning happiness should not be always be individual, but collective, The Greater Happiness, which is what a utilitarian aims for. Again:
“The Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that nations are right in proportion as the tend ti promote happiness, wrong as they tend ti produce the reverse of happiness.”
In other words, the whole of it, is rather a well-thought approach of achieving personal as well as political eudaimonia.
Apart from that, I really enjoyed Mill’s commentaries about social issues. I cannot wait to read his autobiography…
I’m not going to get into Jeremy Bentham’s Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, because quite honestly I didn’t give much attention to it. Because on the one hand, I didn’t make much sense of it, being the debutant I am, and the fact that it’s a bit passé.
But then comes John Stuart Mill with an exquisite essay on liberty, in which he tackles the concept of human freedom. Mill argues that we are only free through our character itself is formed for us by our consequences. Thus challenging the conventional belief of a complete free will that is constantly at stake in neuroscience.
“Our characters are formed by us as well as for us; and how? Not, in general, by our organisation, nor wholly our by our education, but by our experience; experience of the painful consequences of the character we previously had; or by some strong feeling of admiration or aspiration, accidentally aroused.”
Mill also provides in this same essay a way of conducting morality, or as he called it the Art, from the discourse of science. Which I found quite admirable and convenient.
As far as I’m concerned, both essays of Bentham, a progressive philosopher, and Coleridge, a conservative one, were a philosophical praise and critique of both philosophers. In which Mill succeeds in articulating the feelings of repel I had of Bentham’s intro into words.
Now comes my favourite part, the reason I bought this book in the first place; Utilitarianism. Or as Bentham had put it The Great Happiness Principle, is briefly a pure teleological doctrine with the emphasis of promoting happiness as the means for ends. I found that most sensible. In Mills’ words: “I do not mean to assert that the promotion of happiness should be itself the end of all actions, or even of all rules of action. It is the justification, and ought to be the controller, of all ends, but not itself the sole end.”
Meaning happiness should not be always be individual, but collective, The Greater Happiness, which is what a utilitarian aims for. Again:
“The Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that nations are right in proportion as the tend ti promote happiness, wrong as they tend ti produce the reverse of happiness.”
In other words, the whole of it, is rather a well-thought approach of achieving personal as well as political eudaimonia.
Apart from that, I really enjoyed Mill’s commentaries about social issues. I cannot wait to read his autobiography…
September 7, 2020
Alan Ryan’s 50 page introduction is an excellent starting point for the birth of utilitarianism set against the Kantian tradition and an ethics grounded in religious doctrine. Aside from struggling to resist singing ‘John Stuart Mill of his own free will on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill..’ from the Monty Python song while reading Mill’s Utilitarianism, I found the second half rather dry, being as it is entirely devoted to justice. However in the first half Mill shines in his attack on Kant, and I particularly enjoyed Mill’s description of the benefits of opening ones mind to the world through study as an antidote to selfishness.
August 16, 2007
I should have ordered this book for the Phil Perspectives class instead of the Hackett edition of Utilitarianism. This includes selections from Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation, as well as the whole text of Utilitarianism and Mill's essays on Bentham and Coleridge (which are more interesting in some ways than Utilitarianism itself).
May 30, 2008
Only a great mind (Mill was so advanced that he had a mental breakdown before the age of 5) could give something so seemingly obvious and simple and expound on it until you forgot the original thesis. Definitely a positive and interesting way to approach and live your life (and a shout-out to fans of Lost for John Locke's character now being called Jeremy Bentham!)
September 12, 2013
I am not usually a big fan of philosophy but I really enjoyed Utilitarianism. Mill is a capable writer in getting his thoughts across. His definition of utilitarianism and his understanding in commensurating of happiness has provided quite a bit of comfort.
Along with On Liberty, this book is John Stuart Mill at his finest.
Along with On Liberty, this book is John Stuart Mill at his finest.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews