Utilitarianism

by John Stuart Mill

This expanded edition of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism includes the text of his 1868 speech to the British House of Commons defending the use of capital punishment in cases of aggravated murder. The speech is significant both because its topic remains timely and because its arguments illustrate the applicability of the principle of utility to questions of large-scale social policy.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Classics, Economics, School, Political Science

Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1861

About the author

John Stuart Mill, English philosopher, political economist, civil servant and Member of Parliament, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an exponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham, although his conception of it was very different from Bentham's.

Reviews

[Susan Budd · Rating 3 out of 5]

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (10).

Despite my contempt for Utilitarianism, I had always taken this as axiomatic. But no longer. I recant this view and I extend my apologies to pigs and fools. Though surely neither pigs nor fools troubled themselves over my disapproval of their reluctance to philosophize.

Being human is burdensome and being a human compelled to seek wisdom is more burdensome still. While I have never been acquainted with a pig, I have known many satisfied dogs and a few cats who, though too aloof to admit it, looked pretty damn satisfied to me. I do not think I have ever appreciated a patch of sunlight on the floor as much as any of them.

This should not be so. I can appreciate that patch of sunlight in more ways than can a dog or cat. My appreciation can be aesthetic. I can admire the play of light on the hardwood floor. My appreciation can be emotional. Perhaps I will associate the patch of sunlight with warmth or comfort or peace. Perhaps I will be inspired to write a haiku or paint a Hopperesque interior.

My appreciation can be scientific or mathematical or architectural. But I do not think any of these modes of appreciation can rival the pleasure of a dog or cat soaking in the sun and nothing else. Not wishing for the pleasure to continue. Not worrying that the pleasure will be cut short. Not comparing this patch of sunlight to yesterday’s patch of sunlight. Just feeling the sun and nothing else.

I am an animal too and like the dog and cat I can appreciate the pleasant sensation of lying in the sun, but my sensual appreciation is never solely sensual. There is always something else. And it is this something else which makes my appreciation less than that of animals who do not seek wisdom, for I will indeed wish for the pleasure to continue. I will worry that it will be cut short. I will compare today’s patch of sunlight to yesterday’s and I will wonder about tomorrow’s.

Moreover, too many lovely days of lying in the sun will reduce my pleasure in the experience. I will come to take it for granted. But not so Fido. He will lie in that patch of sunlight everyday and it will never get old. My superiority consists entirely in my ability to be dissatisfied with that which satisfies the rest of creation, including a great many of my fellow humans.

These satisfied humans, or fools as Mill calls them, take their pleasures where they find them. They lie in the sun. They drink beer and smoke weed and eat pizza. They listen to music. They dance. They have sex. And tomorrow they do it all over again.

But what of the intellectual pleasures? Shakespearean sonnets and Aristotelian logic? Poetry and philosophy, history and art, science and mathematics – all those pleasures without which we are less than human? The fool cares not for these pleasures. The sitcom makes him laugh and The Tempest makes him yawn and he would rather laugh than yawn.

I have danced enough with fools to know that the unexamined life is absolutely worth living. Who would be a dissatisfied Socrates when he could be a satisfied fool?

[Darwin8u · Rating 5 out of 5]

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question."
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism



I remember reading bits of Mill's Utilitarianism during a course of political philosophy and public policy when I was in college (my major almost 20 years ago was public policy). I have always been attracted to the basics of Mill's Utilitarianism and William's Pragmatism. Thus, may I disagree with Ferris Bueller. I do believe in isms. Anyway, I hadn't touched Mill in quite awhile (6 years) and figured it was probably time to dust off some of those foundational Western political philosophers. Who knows, we all may be rebuilding a Republic soon.

[P.E. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Word Soup

For the moment, suffice it to say that my evaluation of the book relying on the Librivox recording is: offers lots of truisms when not verbose and deathly boring... It was certainly among the most influential texts of its times. Perhaps that's why it appears so unoriginal and tame nowadays?

I'll try and see if On Liberty has more to offer.


For those looking for a powerful narcotic


Soundtrack:
Nocturne Op. 9 N°2 - Chopin

[لونا · Rating 5 out of 5]

مراجعة مقتضبة:-

يمكن إدراج هذا الكتاب تحت بند فلسفة الأخلاق؛ يتكلم عن "النفعية"، وما النفعية إلا تلك: السعادة كغاية قصوى يسعى لها الجميع لما تحدثه من لذة في نفوس ذائقيها، ويتم طرحها ونقاشها كمبدأ أخلاقي مكتمل هدفه الأقصى_الأسمى المصلحة العامة

النفعية = أعظم السعادة = المصلحة العامة

لا أرى بأساً لو تمَّ تغيير عنوان الكتاب إلى فلسفة السعادة

***** *** * *** *****

مراجعة ليست بالمقتضبة:-

هل تعرفون ما هي العاصفة؟ بالتأكيد تعرفون!؛ هنالك نوعية من الكتب تُحدث عاصفة داخل عقولنا ولو تزامن تصوير الدماغ أثناء قراءتها للوحظ نشاط شديد داخل الدماغ والدليل على ذلك سيكون اللون الأحمر الطاغي في الصورة المأخوذة

كتابات جون ستيوارت ميل من النوع العاصف، وبصراحة محاولة كتابة مراجعة عن ما يكتب أشبه بالورطة أولاً: لصعوبة المهمة، وثانياً: خوفاً من أن تنتج مراجعة تجعل قارئها يعزف عن قراءة الكتاب؛ ولذلك أنصح أن لا يعوَّل على ما جاء في المراجعة لإصدار الحكم عن جودة الكتاب بل اعتبارها تعطي فكرة عن المحتوى ولمن اهتم بالفكرة وهمّ بقراءته أنصحه أن يشحذ العزيمة أثناء القراءة فالكتاب ليس بالسهل أبداً (بالنسبة لي) دسم جداً، كيف لا وهو كتاب فلسفي_فكري عن موضوع أخلاقي بقلم كاتب أقل ما يقال عنه أنه رجل المهمات الصعبة

***** *** * *** *****

ميل منذ الصغر اكتشف فيه والده ذلك الذكاء والنضوج الفكري السابق لأوانه فقرر أن يمنحه تعليم غير تقليدي ( مكثف) والقارئ لطبيعة التعليم المبكر الذي تلقّاه (من عمر الثالثة) من خلال قراءة سيرته من هنا وهناك سيعذره عندما يكتشف أنه أصيب بانهيار عصبي شديد في عمر العشرين لطبيعة الحياة التي عاشها أو التي لم يعشها كطفل طبيعي

جيرمي بنثام كان صديق والد ميل وكان له تأثير كبير على ميل من خلال فلسفته وخصوصاً النظرية النفعية التي نذر حياته لها، تأثر ميل كثيراً بالنظرية وتبنّاها ودافع عنها لأنها واجهت نقداً شديداً واتهمت بالمادية وتعديها على الحقوق الفردية أو الأصح الأقلِّية. ميل دافع عن النفعية من خلال هذا الكتاب وأسبغ عليها الطابع الإنساني الذي يقال أنها تفتقده

***** *** * *** *****

نظرية بنثام النفعية أو مبدأ أعظم السعادة تُختصر كالتالي:0
it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong*

ماذا عن القلة، وهل السعادة بالضرورة تكون مقترنة بالمنفعة وغياب الألم. واللذة بحد ذاتها التي تمنحها السعادة هل هي تبعاً لهذه النظرية خيّره؟

ولو حاولت وضع مثال من "عالمنا" يوضِّح تلك الاعتراضات ورد ميل عليها سأقول مثلاً: لو تم قياس السعادة (بالعدد) الذي تمنحه قراءة رواية مشهورة × بالمقارنة مع قراءة (مثلاً) أشهر كتب ميل "عن الحرية"، فإن كتاب ميل سيخسر شر خسارة بالقياس العددي للسعادة ..... ميل مهتم بالجودة "الكيف" وليس بالعدد، ولذلك بقياس جودة السعادة بالمقارنة مع الرواية × فكتابه عن الحرية هو الفائز بجدارة. شخصياً أعترف بعد تجربة النوعين فإنني للصراحة سلطنت مع ميل وأعتقد أن من جرَّب النوعين حتى لو فضَّل الرواية فإنه سيعترف بثقة تامة أن قيمة كتابات ميل أقوى وتقدم لذة أكبر من الروايات؛ والتجربة هي ما يتحدى بها ميل منتقديه حيث يقول {لقد أضحى من قبيل الواقع الذي لا يحتمل أية مساءلة أن أولئك الذين تعودوا بالتساوي على طريقتي عيش مختلفتين وكانوا قادرين على التمتع بهما واستحسانهما فإنهم يفضلون بصفة قطعية نمط الحياة الذي يستخدم أرقى ملكاتهم} شخصياً أتفق مع العبارة لأبعد حد

***** *** * *** *****

ميل في هذا الكتاب دافع عن مبدأ أعظم السعادة "النفعية" من خلال خمس فصول، الفصول بالترتيب هي كالتالي:

1-ملاحظات عامة
2-ماهية النفعية
3-العقوبات القصوى لمبدأ النفعية
4-أي نوع من الأدلة يحتمله مبدأ النفعية
5-حول الصلة بين العدل والمنفعة

_______________________________


سيتضح للقارئ (بالحكم على الأسلوب الكتابي) أن أغلب القادم هو من الكتاب نفسه، شخصياً اعتبره كملخص لأهم ما وصلني من الكتاب ما قمت به هو استخلاص ما وصلني على شكل اقتباسات من هنا وهناك ربطت بينها وأزلت منها وزدت لها لتخرج بهذا الشكل المكثَّف:

يقول ميل أن النفعية قوبلت باستنكار لعدة أسباب منها أنه فسِّرت بمقابلتها بلفظ "لذة" بمعناه الضيق، واعتبرت جافة إذا ما كان لفظ اللذة مسبوق بالمنفعة ومشحونة بالتلذذ إذا ما سبق لفظ اللذة لفظ المنفعة. ولذلك دافع عن النفعية بكون النفعيين رفعوا من شأن اللذات الذهنية، بالمقارنة مع اللذات الجسدية وذلك بالرجوع أساساً إلى ارتفاع ديمومتها وسلامتها وعدم كلفتها بالمقارنة مع اللذات الجسدية، فمن التخلف -على حد قوله- عند تقديرنا للملذات أن يقتصر ذلك على الكم فقط دون الكيف

يعترف ميل أن ما يدعو له يحتاج جهد جماعي مستمر ويدافع عن واقع الشباب المنغمس في اللذات الدونية بكونه نتيجة لا مهرب منها فهذا هو المجتمع وهذا هو الواقع؛ فتلك النبتة النبيلة المتمثلة بالأخلاق السامية نبتة رقيقة ومعرضه للفناء تحتاج لعناية فائقة عن طريق تنمية "نبل الطبع العامة". المصلحة العامة تحتاج نوع خاص من الفضيلة أطلق عليه ميل اسم "أخلاق التضحية" التي تتطلب ثقافة فكرية تجعل الفرد يتخلى عن الأنانية بحيث يكون هناك ترابط وثيق بين السعادة الخاصة والخير بالنسبة للجميع في ذهن كل كائن بشري. ويلفت الانتباه بعد ذلك لنقطة مهمة ألا وهي: أن الحالات التي تتطلب تضحية بالقياس العام (المنفعة العامة) تعتبر مناسبات استثنائية جداً بالمقارنة بالمنفعة الخاصة

لفته أخرى مهمة ينوِّه عنها لأصحاب التوقعات اللامنطقية ألا وهي: أنه من المستحيل التفكير أن المبدأ النفعي يعني بالسعادة كحالة مستمرة من الإثارة الممتعة للغاية، بل ذلك البريق اللامع والعرضي للتمتع لا ذلك اللهيب الدائم والمستعر

***** *** * *** *****

من أين يستمد أي مبدأ أخلاقي قوته المُلزِمة؟

هنالك عقوبات تُصاحب أي نسق أخلاقي: داخلية وخارجية. الخارجية تأتي من الله أو من البشر؛ أما الداخلية فهي إحساس في أنفسنا بألم متفاوت الحدة يتبع انتهاك الواجب وهو بالنسبة للذين تلقوا التربية الأخلاقية الملائمة يجعلهم يمتنعون عن مخالفة الواجب كما لو كان ذلك من باب المستحيل وهذا الإحساس هو جوهر الضمير الحي والواعي

فالمشاعر الأخلاقية مشاعر في رأي ميل مشاعر ليست فطرية بل مكتسبة بدون أن يمنع ذلك من اعتبارها طبيعية (مثلاً من الطبيعي أن يتكلم الإنسان ولكن هذه القدرة بطبعها مكتسبة)، وقوة الأخلاق النفعية إن تم الاعتراف بالسعادة العامة كمبدأ أخلاقي تكمن في تأسيس مشاعر اجتماعية للنوع البشري تتمثل في الرغبة في التلاحم مع أمثالنا وتصور أنفسنا عضو من بدن كامل وأن مصلحة الفرد مرتبطة بالكل، وبدون ذلك فالحياة الاجتماعية لا يمكن تحقيقها بدون التأثير القوي للجزاء الخارجي الذي أساسه مصلحة الآخرين

***** *** * *** *****

هل النفعية تتعارض مع العدل؟
فكرة العدل تفترض أمرين: 1- قاعدة من قواعد السلوك (مشتركة بين الناس) و 2- شعور يجازي القاعدة (تحمل العقاب من طرف المخالفين للقاعدة)
الشعور بالعدل يقول ميل هو بالأصل غريزة حيوانية للثأر ورغبة في الانتقام من المنتهكين، فالبشر لا يختلفون عن الحيوانات في هذه النقطة إلا بخاصتين: الأولى قدرتهم على التعاطف والثانية أنهم يتمتعون بذكاء متفوق. فالذكاء المتفوق مضافاً إلى القدرة على التعاطف مع البشر عامة، يؤهله (الفرد) ليربط نفسه بالفكرة الجماعية لقبيلته أو لبلده أو للبشرية على نحو يوقظ فيه أي فعل ضار غريزة التعاطف ويحثه على المقاومة

وكأن ميل يقول أن فكرة الإلزام الخارجي (القانوني) والإلزام الداخلي (الضمير الحي) هما جوهر العدل وبالمحصلة فالهدف العام هو المصلحة العامة التي تعود على الجميع بالسعاة

وهكذا يثبت ميل في أكثر الفصول "دسامة" أن العدل المبني على المنفعة هو الجزء الأكثر قداسة والأكثر إلزاماً من الأخلاق بأسرها، أي أنه لا تعارض بين العدل والنفعية

___________________

شكراً إشراق لكل هذه المتعة التي كنتِ سبباً بها من غير أن يكون لكِ علم بذلك ... فمن مدة مضت مررت لي مجموعة من المحاضرات التي اعتقدت أنها ستنال إعجابي؛ كانت مصيبة باعتقادها ومن خلال هذه المحاضرات اكتشفت كتاب النفعية، بالتحديد في الحلقة الثانية منها لمن يريد مشاهدة ذلك. للعلم هذه المحاضرات متصلة وكل حلقة معتمدة على التي تسبقها وسيشعر بذلك من يكتفي بمشاهدة الحلقة التي أشرت لها

Justice

لن أفوِّت الفرصة لأقول أن أكثر المقاطع التي أتفق معها وأجدها قد وضَّحت الكثير عن النفعية هو المقطع الذي يبتدئ عند الدقيقة 44 و14 ثانية، لصحابها المدعو "جو" وأحب أن أشير لأهمية مشاهدة رأيه كاملاً الذي يستمر للدقيقة 46 و41 ثانية. قد أكون أخطأت في التوقيت وللتأكيد فهذه هي صورة جو


***** *** * *** *****

أخيراً اقتبس من الكتاب هذا المقطع: إن الاعتقاد القائل بأن الله يرغب فوق كل اعتبار في سعادة مخلوقاته، هو ما كان غرضه من خلقها، فإن النفعية لن تكون فحسب نظرية دون إله، بل ستكون نظرية دينية في أعماقها وأكثر من أي نظرية أخرى

__________________

ملاحظة:-
*فضلت أن تبقى العبارة غير معربة لقصور في شخصي وليس بعجز اللغة العربية، فكل محاولاتي لترجمتها لم تنقل المعنى الذي فهمته والإحساس المتولد عنه

[Hamidreza Hosseini · Rating 4 out of 5]

مهم ترین چیزی که با خوندن این کتاب فهمیدم یا در واقع ازش مطمئن تر شدم، اینه که اغلب مطالب آموزشی دوران تحصیل ما، چه در دوران مدرسه و چه در دانشگاه (رشته های فنی حداقل) مشتی اراجیف و دروغ بوده اند.
اون جایی که توی کتاب تعلیمات دینی از فلسفه های فایده گرایانه، به عنوان فلسفه هایی فقط به دنبال لذت حیوانی یاد شده بود.
نمیگم تمام حرفهای این کتاب و فلسفه ی اخلاق فایده گرا درسته، ولی خیلی کمک میکنه به اینکه بتونی بهتر فکر کنی به مسیری که برای زندگی اخلاقیت در نظر گرفتی.

نوشته ی خود استیوارت میل واقعا سخت بود خوندن و فهمش و باید کلی فکر میکردم تا بفهمم، اگه میتونستم بفهمم البته. توضیحات دکتر مردیها در بعضی قسمتها که خیلی پیچیده میشد قضیه، واقعا خوب و راهگشا بود.

موخره ای هم که خود دکتر مردیها نوشته بود خیلی خیلی کمک کرد به تکمیل و فهم بهتر کلیت حرفهای استیوارت میل.

[Ben Labe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here, Mill offers a thorough description and defense of his moral theory, proposing the greatest happiness ("utilitarian") principle as the unique first principle underlying all moral conduct. "The 'greatest happiness principle' holds that actions are right in proportion as they promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness," he argues. Happiness, Mill defines as "pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain." While this definition seems dubious at first, Mill demonstrates it to be very robust in its sweep, inventing novel arguments to distinguish between elevated and base pleasures (to Mill, ignorance is anything but bliss) and cleverly subsuming other ends under the banner of the "ultimate" one that he has proposed. That happiness is indeed the ultimate end he infers empirically (rightly admitting the futility of rigorously proving one's first principles). Eventually, Mill proceeds with a discussion of justice and its connection to utility. Not only does he show the primacy of the utilitarian principle over a justice principle in terms of its scope, but he demonstrates how it is capable of resolving disputes over justice. In so doing, he produces two extremely useful examples regarding distributive justice in the field of economics, resulting in the book's very best chapter. All in all, decent philosophy, but very poor style.

[Mehmet]

"nihai amaç [...] acıdan mümkün olduğunca azade ve keyiften mümkün olduğunca zengin bir varoluş, bir yaşamdır." (s. 71)

Selin Aktuyun'un başarılı çevirisi Yıldız Silier'in uzun ve kapsamlı önsözü sayesinde hakkında çokça fikir edindiğimiz Mill'in iki büyük başyapıtından birisi olan Faydacılık, üç yaşında Yunan Dili ve Edebiyatı, altı yaşında Latince ve Mantık öğrenen bir dehaya yakışır bir eser.

Kısaca faydacılık fikrini özetleyen, bu fikre yönelik eleştirilere cevap veren ve bu fikri en büyük zaafı olan adalet kuramları üzerinde irdeleyen Mill'in söylemlerinin ustaca kurgulandığını ifade etmek gerek. Zira fikirlerini çok sağlam temeller üzerine inşa ederken bugünün evrensel ilkeleri haline gelen pek çok fikrin temelini de atıyor.

Düşünürün faydacılıkta çizdiği sınır, başka insanların mutluluğunun sınırını oluşturuyor. Bu yönüyle özgürlüğü de aynı şekilde sınırlıyor.

Mutlaka okunması gereken bir klasik olan kitapta düşünür Faydacılığı şöyle özetliyor:

"Faydayı ya da en yüksek mutluluk ilkesini ahlakın temeli olarak kabul eden bu öğreti, eylemlerimizi mutluluğun gelişimine yol açtığı oranda doğru, mutluluğun tersini ürettiği oranda yanlış bulur. Mutluluk acının yokluğu ve haz anlamına gelir, mutsuzluk ise hazzın yokluğu ve acıdır." (s.61)

M.B.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill is one tough book to read. But, if one understands it, it does prove to be interesting. Simply put, Mill explains that there is no basis for morality: what is good and what is bad. Utilitarianism is an idea that moral worth of an action is determined by the usefulness of it. People never settle for less. No one would like to be a happy animal. As Mill words it, "It is better to be an unsatisfied Socrates, than a satisfiel fool." Major themes in the book included happiness, desires, and utility. Unjust laws do exist. This clashes with the theory of justice. Removal of justice would hurt society in the beginning, but, as Mill says, people would eventually learn in the end and peace would exist. If someone threatens your happiness you punish them. That's how Mill envisions justice. Whatever leads you to happiness is good, and that's what the book pretty much states. I feel there's a little hint of Machiavelli in the text. The idea that "the end justifies the means" is one danger I see that utilitarianism may turn into.

[Foad Ansari · Rating 2 out of 5]

نتونستم با کتاب ارتباط برقرار کنم و خیلی خسته کننده بود برام
نمیدونم اشکال از چی بود شاید چند سال دیگه دوباره بخونمش

[Claudia · Rating 4 out of 5]

In times of building walls and talk of re-foundation of the Republicanism (in many of the Republics of the early 21st Century), and a looming fourth revolution, whereby workers won't be as much exploited (as Marx would have it) but rather ignored and a pariah to the process of wealth creation, it is important to return to the basics. And in law, John Stuart Mill is well and truly part of the basics!
John Stuart Mill who is the son of (and tutored by) John Mill and Godson to Jeremy Bentham (who was also his mentor) has produced a tour the force in this short book in which he presents the defence of his moral theory in accordance with utilitarianism. In short, he says that: "those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer from Epicurus to Bentham who maintained the theory of 'utility' meant by it not something to be contrasted with pleasure but pleasure itself together with freedom from pain" and ' The doctrine that the basis of morals is utility or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in the proportion as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness. By 'happiness' is meant pleasure and the absence of pain; By 'unhappiness' is meant pain and the lack of pleasure.(..)'
Catching a gap in Bentham's theory, Mill asserted that there are lower and higher forms of pleasure. And he makes it clear when he says: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied(..)' all of which means that more base human needs and pleasures (food, sex et. al) are not necessarily the whole story when it comes to human flourishing. Sapiens need also advancing towards intellectual inquiry and achievements and arts contemplation and production for example. This is a powerful insight into our highly technological societies, in that perhaps our future won't be in work (since the world of work seems an ever-dwindling enterprise cf. worldwide share of surplus workers for example). But on Mill's higher - or more valuable - human pleasures. This could well be the way of our future in the XXI Century. Just look at the latest Davos' reports!
Mill provided us with a large list of valuable endeavours, that are obtainable through the cultivation of the mind: objects of nature, the achievements of art, the imaginations of poetry, the incidents of history, human events in the past and present as well as their prospects in the future' are some mentions worth highlighting.
While Mill admits that self-sacrifice is not necessarily the way of utilitarians (unless it is done to increase the happiness of others) he accepts the Christian golden rule as the most acceptable form of utilitarianism. He goes on to discuss the criticisms the Utilitarian theory received and affirms that for utilitarians virtue is possibly an end ( as some see virtue as happiness). Indeed he posits that: "The desire for virtue differs from the love of money, of power, of fame, in this: •those three can and often do make the person •noxious to the other members of the society to which he belongs, whereas the disinterested •love of virtue makes him a •blessing to them—nothing more so! And so the utilitarian standard, while it tolerates and approves those other acquired desires •up to the point beyond which they would do more harm than good to the general happiness, demands the cultivation of the love of virtue •up to the greatest strength possible because it is more important than anything else to the general happiness."
The fifth chapter analyses the relationship between utility and justice. Here he provided a survey of many ideas current at the time, about the distinction of justice and other fields of the moral utilitarian thesis. He goes on to consider punishment, wages, taxation in turn. I am especially impressed with his discussion in redistributive justice. Very contemporary indeed for an 18th Century work. In all, this is a very thorough study of the utilitarian moral thesis and John Stuart Mill deserves the acclaim he has attained. Must be considered by anyone reading in this philosophical area. 4/5 stars.

[Pavelas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Millis siūlo etikos teoriją, kurios pagrindinis teiginys - kuo didesnė laimė (malonumas) ir kuo mažiau skausmo kuo didesniam skaičiui žmonių. Tiek malonumai, tiek skausmai yra skirtingų lygių: “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”. Įdomu, kad skirtingų lygių malonumai turi skirtingą vertę dėl to, kad jie leidžia žmogui jaustis oresniam.

Ne itin įdomu buvo skaityti, nepaisant to, kad pritariau kai kurioms Millio išvadoms. Praėjus nepilniems dviem mėnesiams po perskaitymo galvoje liko nedaug Utilitarizmo.

[Drew Canole · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mill writes about Utilitarianism. If you've read any modern take on this ethical system, there's nothing new here. The first chapter is very long and boring - I guess back in Mill's time he needed to justify Utilitarianism over other ethical systems like the Christian Bible pleas - now we, probably due to Mill, Utilitarianism is a completely understandable concept and doesn't really need to be defending in contrast to religious morals.

The rest of the book is fun, and Mill shows his passion for the subject.

It was fun to read his responses to various objections, objections that people still voice today (like how utilitarianism doesn't respect the individual, in favour of the greater good). Its strange that Mill tied in his responses in the book yet people still voice them with blissful disregard to the fact that Mill had plausible responses already lined up.

I'd recommend this book to anybody getting into ethical studies. Its an important work that has become a part of our social unconscious.

[Amy Armstrong · Rating 2 out of 5]

Okay, I'm not sure what to say about this. It's like milk; it's good for you, but can leave you bloated and gassy and the cover is totally uninspiring. Most of the writing is equally uninspiring. I recommend 2 minutes of Utilitarianism followed by 20 minutes of Googling gossipy facts about Mill.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

During the first semester at Loyola University Chicago I enrolled in David Ozar's Ethics Survey course. Treated in that class were Natural Law Ethics, Deontology and Utilitarianism. Having never taken an ethics course before, I found the class and its readings quite interesting. I also found one of the presumptions apparently held by all the ethicists we read objectionable.

What I found questionable was as regards the matter of agency. Previous study of cultural anthropology, psychology and religion had problematized the notion for me. Psychologists commonly described cases of fragmented or multiple agency. Religions commonly assigned various identities to the motivating factors behind the behaviors of some persons. Cultural anthropologists commonly described peoples who held to notions of collective agency. How could it be then that philosophers could so blithely treat human biological entities as correspondent to individual ethical agents? Some back argument seemed necessary, an argument I recalled suggested by Origen in his De Principiis, wherein is stated that Christians are of monotheistic belief in order that their souls might become one.

Representative of Utilitarianism for this class were Jeremy Bentham--for the simplest, hedonic version--and John Stuart Mill, neither of whom dealt at all with the problem of agency, both of whom, however, were quite clear in detailing an ethical programme for individuals of sound mind.

This critical edition of Mill's Utilitarianism has excellent notes and commentary.

[Tyler · Rating 2 out of 5]

The last chapter saved this book from a one-star rating. While it's still wrong in a whole, I believe that Mill makes very small but important points throughout the book. For instance, he realizes that equality, with a government, requires inequality because some have more power than others (i.e. the people in government). Overall, though, his "proof" of utilitarianism is weak. His analysis of other ethical theories are very topical and not in-depth. And lastly, the most annoying thing about this book; WAY too many damn commas and extra thoughts in the middle of a sentence. What looks like a paragraph sometimes turns into one sentence with commas and semi-colons. The chapter on justice saves it a little bit but he doesn't seem to offer any solutions. For instance, he points out that we could possibly blame somebody for something they didn't do or we could NOT do that, which is more just? Well, Mill says it could go either way which this is completely counter-intuitive. He also says that a person deserves to keep his money, the rich specifically, because it brings more utility. His biggest arguments are his weakest yet very subtle and intelligent points come out mixed with those big arguments.

[Connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This treatise by the famous British philosopher is a fascinating study into ideas about liberty. The main premise is that anything that does not harm anyone physically should be be legal. This conclusion is a fascinating one that went on to inspire many future liberals. The book is very brief but a very solid well written essay that does not dwindle on irrelevant stuff like so many other political writings from the 19th century. Overall, it gets a 4/5 from me.

[Paulla Ferreira Pinto · Rating 5 out of 5]

De uma clareza espantosa, Mill defende a “sua dama”com elegância e propósito alcançado de fazer passar inteiramente a mensagem.
Há uma bondade e um humanismo no utilitarismo que não deixa de impressionar e que impele o leitor a continuar a estudar o tema, nem que seja voltando a este.

[Abdul Raheem · Rating 3 out of 5]

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question."

[Gav451 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like a slightly smug and self righteous hipster wannabe I thought it would nice to read a philosophical classic, looking intellectually into the middle distance every now and again and making interested and thoughtful 'hmmmmmm' noises as I stroked my chin. What I needed were some cords, a pipe and a thick knit cardigan to really transition into a pseudeo-intellectual.

Its a short book as well so as far as I was concerned it was a win win. Finish quickly; be wise; bish bosh and back to the rubbish.

In my mind my transition into a much wiser Gav was nearly complete.

I did not factor in the following:-

- I'm getting on a bit
- After 10 hours at work I tend to be a bit tired.
- The writing is thick and complex and very nuanced.

This is not a light read, its not a train read and its not a fun filled page turner. There were sentences that were so long and thick and twisty turny that as I approached the end of them I had forgotten where they began. There were many good and interesting points but they were so knowingly clever that they were not landing as well as they should have been.

The 2 stars here refers to my failure as a reader as opposed to the failure of the book. The stars reflect my engagement with it. I did finish the book and that was by no means a given.

I might try and read a different philosopher at some point as you can get them free for you kindle but really I need to win a shed load of money, do a philosophy course and study books like these. That's my dream, its unlikely to happen any time soon.

[Maureen · Rating 4 out of 5]

The greatest proponent of utilitarianism in modern memory is Dr. Spock of Star Trek fame. The fact that an essay written in the 1860s is still having an impact on contemporary culture speaks to the longevity of J.S. Mill's idea. It has fueled countless debates among students in philosophy classes, and in the general public. The Greatest Happiness Principle is certainly worthy of consideration, and Mill's treatise has probably figured into many people's calculations when weighing momentous life decisions.

[Farah Al-Shuhail · Rating 4 out of 5]

تصوّر نظرية فلسفية تضمن السعادة العظمى لأكبر عدد من الأشخاص، وتقوم على مبدأ الفردية (منفعة الفرد فوق مصلحة المجتمع)، وتستند في قياسها لسلوك الفرد على النتائج أو ما يعرف بالعواقبية (مدى أخلاقية فعل ما تقاس بالنتائج المترتبة على الفعل). هذا، بإختصار، هو المبدأ النفعي الذي أسسه الفيلسوف البريطاني جيريمي بنثام وتأثر به المؤرخ والفيلسوف جيمس مِل ونقله بدوره إلى ابنه جون ستيوارت مِل الذي اخذ على عاتقه مهمة الدفاع عنه.

[Tuncer Şengöz · Rating 5 out of 5]

J.S. Mill'in muhakkak okunması gereken klasikleşmiş eserinin Türkçe baskıları arasında kararsız kalanlar Alfa Yayıncılık'tan yayımlanan bu kitabı okusunlar; Yıldız Silier'in sunuşu, Selin Aktuyun'un çevirisi mükemmel. Toplam beş bölümden oluşan eserin özellikle, Fayda ile Adalet arasındaki bağlantı başlıklı beşinci bölümü, tekrar tekrar okunmaya değer.

[for-much-deliberation ... · Rating 4 out of 5]

By simple definition: utilitarianism - a doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or benefit a majority... this can be compared to that which is considered epicurean...

[Marcel Santos · Rating 5 out of 5]

ENGLISH

John Stuart Mill excels in the art of writing clearly and objectively in this book. “Utilitarianism” is a short but powerful work. As in “On Liberty”, Mill starts from a principle of simple formulation, but with vast implications and consequences in its applicability to practical life.

He does much better in “Utilitarianism” than in “On Liberty”, in my opinion. The author builds and develops long arguments, but very well tied together and with such clarity that sometimes reminds the reader of current non-fiction literature. The result is a powerful argument, especially in the chapters preceding the connection between Justice and Utilitarianism.

The utilitarian principle is clear: human actions are right insofar as they tend to promote happiness — understood as pleasure and the absence of pain —, and wrong insofar as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness, which is the deprivation of pleasure. At the collective level, the action that takes into account the welfare of society will be correct even if it may cause some individual pain.

This is clearly a very Western conception, insofar as it places the pursuit of individual and collective happiness as the guiding principle of society. And not only that: the concept, originating from Jeremy Bentham, has decisively influenced economic theory, which chooses “well-being” as its touchstone. For the vast majority of economic schools that followed, the premise of the functioning of the entire Economy is that the economic agent is rational, seeking to maximize utilities and pursuing well-being.

As this book was written after “On Liberty”, Mill could have taken the opportunity to address the possible criticism that the utilitarian principle might be seen in conflict with the liberty principle. It is possible to relate the defense of collective well-being as superior to the individual one as something defended by Socialism or Communism, for example.

However, it is also possible to position the utilitarian concept in the capitalist system. Both principles would be in harmony, insofar as individual freedom that does not affect the interests of third parties, as described in “On Liberty”, would be the search for happiness and the removal of pain on the individual plane advocated in “Utilitarianism”. To the extent that individual action starts to interfere with the rights of others, then there is the possibility of it being coerced.

Nevertheless, according to utilitarian ethics, it would still be worth questioning whether the aforementioned interference in the interests of others would be a matter of degree or number of people affected to invoke reprimand or State interference in individual action. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, justice would take place to the extent that individual action negatively affects society.

One might try to argue in a harmonizing way that even individual acts that violate a law and, in practice, affect a single person, should also be punished from a utilitarian perspective because the law is a product of greater values ​​of society already discussed and agreed upon. Therefore, although isolated and with low potential to affect the interests of third parties, an act can also be seen as a violation of utility insofar as it offends the interest of society set out in the aforementioned specific legal rule.

In any case, it is precisely in the final part connecting justice and utilitarianism that the weakest part of this book resides, which, in all the rest, is very well argued.

Not that there is absence of criticism in the very conception of utilitarianism as a philosophical principle in itself. In a time of a pandemic like the one the planet is still going through, a moral dilemma for the utilitarian school could very well be who to vaccinate first when the first shots were made available. In the strictly utilitarian conception, perhaps it would not be strange or even immoral to choose the economically active population first and leave the elderly for last, putting economic recovery as a priority — thus thinking that a rapidly recovering economy would avoid shortages more quickly and even more deaths, including of the elderly. However, from the point of view of prevailing morality, the choice has been to vaccinate the elderly first, leaving the economically active people (and presumably healthier) population for the end. This decision might be seen as only moral (simply more respect for the elderly), but also utilitarian since protecting the vulnerable first would tend to alleviate hospitals which would benefit a larger number of people in need of treatment.

Although the utilitarian concept is far from perfect as a moral philosophy, and the fact that the book contains a distinctly weaker part, it deserves maximum rating not only for the clarity with which it was written, but also for its influence on many Social Sciences thereafter, most especially Economics.


PORTUGUÊS

Neste livro, John Stuart Mill se supera na arte de escrever clara e objetivamente. Utilitarismo é uma obra curta, porém poderosa. Assim como em On Liberty, Mill parte de um princípio de formulação simples, mas de vastíssimas implicações e consequências em sua aplicabilidade à vida prática.

Ele se sai muito melhor em Utilitarismo do que em On Liberty, na minha opinião. O autor constrói e desenvolve raciocínios longos, mas muito bem amarrados e de uma clareza que às vezes lembra literatura de não ficção atual. O resultado é uma argumentação poderosa, sobretudo nos capítulos anteriores à conexão entre Justiça e Utilitarismo.

O princípio utilitarista é claro: as ações humanas estão certas na medida em que tendem a promover a felicidade, entendida como o prazer e a ausência de dor, e erradas na medida em que tendem a produzir o reverso da felicidade, sendo esta a privação de prazer. No plano coletivo, será correta a ação que leve em conta o bem estar da sociedade ainda que possa causar alguma dor individual.

Trata-se, claramente, de uma concepção bastante Ocidental, na medida em que coloca a busca da felicidade individual e coletiva como princípio norteador da sociedade. E não só isso: o conceito, originário de Jeremy Bentham, influenciou decisivamente a teoria econômica, que elege o “bem-estar” como sua pedra de toque. Para a grande maioria das escolas econômicas que se seguiram, a premissa do funcionamento de toda a Economia é de que o agente econômico é racional porque busca maximizar utilidades e persegue seu bem-estar.

Tendo essa obra sido escrita posteriormente a On Liberty, Mill poderia ter aproveitado a oportunidade para enfrentar a crítica possível de que o princípio utilitarista pode ser visto como estando em conflito com o princípio da liberdade. É possível relacionar a defesa do bem-estar coletivo como superior ao individual como algo defendido pelo Socialismo ou Comunismo, por exemplo.

No entanto, também é possível posicionar a concepção utilitarista no sistema capitalista. É possível enxergar no cotejo entre On Liberty e Utilitarismo a harmonização de ambos os princípios, na medida em que a liberdade individual que não afeta interesses de terceiros, como descrita em On Liberty, pode ser vista como a busca pela felicidade e afastamento da dor no plano individual preconizada em Utilitarismo. Na medida em que a ação individual passa a interferir sobre direitos de outros, tem-se a possibilidade de ser coagida.

Não obstante, pela ética utilitarista, ainda assim, caberia questionar se a referida interferência sobre interesses de outros seria uma questão de grau ou quantidade de pessoas afetadas para invocar a reprimenda ou interferência do Estado sobre a ação individual. Pela ótica estritamente utilitarista, a justiça passaria a ter lugar na medida em que a ação individual afetasse negativamente a sociedade.

Pode-se tentar argumentar de forma harmonizadora que mesmo atos individuais que violem uma lei e, na prática, afetem uma única pessoa, também devem ser punidos segundo a ótica utilitarista porque a lei é produto de valores maiores da sociedade já discutidos e objeto de consenso. Logo, ainda que isolado e com baixo potencial de afetação de interesses de terceiros, o ato também pode ser visto como violador da utilidade na medida em que ofende o interesse da sociedade positivado na regra jurídica especifica.

De todo modo, é justamente na parte final, no exercício de conexão entre justiça e utilitarismo, que reside a parte mais fraca deste livro que, em todo o restante, é muito bem argumentado.

Não que haja ausência de críticas também na própria concepção do utilitarismo como princípio filosófico em si. Em época de pandemia como a que o planeta ainda vem passando, um dilema moral para a escola utilitarista poderia muito bem ser: no momento em que as primeiras vacinas são disponibilizadas, quem deve ser vacinado primeiro? Na concepção estritamente utilitarista, talvez não fosse estranho ou até mesmo imoral escolher primeiro a população economicamente ativa e deixar os idosos para o final, colocando-se como prioridade a recuperação econômica — pensando-se assim que uma economia recuperada rapidamente evitaria penúria mais rapidamente e ainda mais mortes, inclusive de idosos. No entanto, na ótica da moral vigente, a escolha para se vacinar primeiro aconteceu em favor, ao que se sabe na grande maioria dos países, dos idosos, deixando a população economicamente ativa (e presumivelmente mais saudável) para o final. Essa decisão pode ser vista apenas como moral (simplesmente mais respeito aos idosos), mas também utilitarista, pois proteger primeiro os vulneráveis ​​tenderia a aliviar os hospitais, o que beneficiaria um número maior de pessoas que precisariam de tratamento.

Embora o conceito utilitarista esteja longe de ser perfeito como filosofia moral, e o fato de o livro conter uma parte nitidamente mais fraca, o livro merece nota máxima não apenas pela clareza com que foi escrito, mas também por sua influência em muitas Ciências Sociais, especialmente a Economia.

[Brian Powell · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's pretty hard to disagree with a moral system based on the greatest good for the greatest number, and Mill argues his case passionately. That said, I'm not quite ready to assail an innocent man in a hospital waiting room so that his organs might be harvested to save the lives a few wanting people in the ICU.

Consequentalist moral systems seem to suffer from a formidable complication regarding foresight, or the ability of people to understand the ramifications of their actions a priori. Mill argues that the actual consequences of our actions are immaterial -- that it's the intent that ultimately matters (the example Mill uses of a person saving another person from drowning just so that might kill him later is quaint, if not a little irrelevant.) My concern is that moral agents acting according to Mill's utilitarianism must have a highly sophisticated ethical calculus by which they determine and weigh how the costs and benefits of each of their actions square with the accounting of the greater good. Two men in their nineties are drowning and a gifted 12-year-old is being lowered into a shark tank -- What do we do? We can't know a priori the consequences of either action. So what principle do we apply? An accounting in lives is simple enough, but it is untrue that more saved lives implies a greater good for a greater number (the 12-year-old could end up inventing the cure for leukemia, and the two ninety-somethings might die the next day anyway). Exactly how the well-being of individuals translates into the greater good of society is not addressed by Mill, and seems a difficulty for consequentialism in general.

It's not that utilitarianism is misguided -- it isn't. My point is that there is much information that must be taken into account before we even begin to understand how our actions might affect the greater good, even if we had a calculus for making this determination, which we might or might not. And even if we had this information and this calculus, we can't know all the ramifications, and of course it further depends on the time scale across which these consequences are applied -- days, years, centuries (which might be part of our calculus, but maybe not). So, I get it -- you make the best decision you can, given your life experience, that you believe improves the fitness of the most people. And you'd probably succeed in actually doing this maybe 20% of the time.

[Mohammed Algarawi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before I start talking about utilitarianism, let me tell you one thing or two about the philosopher who wrote this book.

John Stewart Mill was the son of the 17th century British philosopher James mill. And by taking full control of his son's educations and keeping him from associating with children of his own age, James Mill produced a prodigy who was said to have started learning Greek at three and Latin at seven. By the age of twelve young Mill was a competent logician, by sixteen a skilled economist- and at twenty he had a nervous breakdown.

Public education my ass.

Now that you've had a glimpse of Mill's background, here's the definition of utilitarianism: a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering.

In other words, the morality of an action is judged by how much happiness it produces and how much suffering it reduces.

Classic utilitarianism is very similar to, if not a branch of consequentialism (defining the moral justice of an action by its consequences). In this book, Mill defines utilitarianism, defends it, and gives his opinion I how to apply it and enhance its applications in real life.

He also presents his theory of natural rights and democracy.

All in all, this is a shot, yet a very dense read. I definitely recommend it to those who are interested in moral philosophy.

[Yamen Ourabi · Rating 2 out of 5]

تعتبر فلسفة ميل النفعية رديفة للسعادة العظمى أو أعظم سعادة,
وهي ليست فقط بالبحث عن السعادة بل تجنب الشقاء والتخفيف منه .

يجادل ميل في كتابه بأن غاية الإنسان هي السعادة, وأن كل مايريده الإنسان سواء في حواسه أو فكره إنما الوصول إلى تلك الغاية,فليصل الإنسان إلى تلك الغاية يستخدم وسائل وكثيراً ما تصبح تلك الوسائل في نظر الإنسان غاية بذاتها, وهنا يقول ميل بأنه رغم ذلك فإن الوسيلة تصبح جزء من الغاية الرئيسية وهي أعظم سعادة.

يحاول ميل أن يقنعنا بأن سعادة كل فرد مهمة, وسعادة الكل أيضاً مهمة.
فلو حققنا سعادة الأفراد كل على حدى, ولقنا الأفراد واجبهم تجاه السعادة العامة, لعمل الفرد على مصالحه الخاصة وأيضاً على المصالح العامة, إذاً لحقق سعادته الخاصة والخير بالنسبة للجميع.
فجدله إذاً في قضية المنفعة الخاصة والمنفعة العامة, فهو يرى بأن كل فرد يسعى إلى منفعته الخاصة, ولكن إن وجد التربية والبيئة والظروف المناسبة التي تقوي إيمانه بالمنفعة العامة فستصبح تلك المنفعة جزء لا يتجزأ من شخصيته وسيضحي في سبيلها.
وتضحية الفرد بسعادته في سبيل سعادة الآخرين هي أعظم فضيلة بنظر ميل.

يرى ميل بأن الله يرغب فوق كل اعتبار في سعادة مخلوقاته وهذا هو غرضه من خلقها, فالنفعية عنده ليست نظرية دون إله بل دينية في أعماقها.

أما بالنسبة للمشاعر الأخلاقية فهي عنده ليست فطرية بل مكتسبة

الشعور بالعدل بالنسبة لميل رغبة حيوانية في الانتقام بسبب الاساءة الملحقة بالنفس أو الإساءة التي ألحقت بمن نتعاطف معهم, والبشر عنده لديهم قدرة كبيرة على التعاطف.
وفكرة الحق والعدل عنده نسبية, فالحق عندي مغايراً للحق عند غيري.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

People who've studied philosophy are, IMO, the most interesting people with whom to share conversation. There's a kind of elegance about the way they put a case for an idea, and I like the way that while are open to dissenting opinions, they can demolish them in style.
Mills shows how it's done. Here and there he pours a little scorn, but mostly it's a classically intelligent, coherent, logical argument for the principle that when trying to decide on a course of action, one should choose the position that brings happiness to the greatest number of people.

8/10 for utilitarianism; 1/10 for applying it to capital punishment.

[Melissa Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is short but very challenging. I would suggest reading it over and over again until you have the "Eureka!" moment that will be life changing. It took me 7 reads to feel like I really got the gist of what John Stuart Mills was trying to express on ethics and happiness. In the end, I didn't agree with everything he thought but it touched me and I still think about it years later. Now that's what I call a successful book!

[Vamsi Krishna KV · Rating 4 out of 5]

JS Mill ventures into the troubled waters of moral philosophy where very few have dared to tread in, to the shaky foundations of justice and tries to fortify it with his elegant principle of utility. Though he isn't the first one to propound the principle of utility, his meticulous efforts for laying it down with such clarity are much laudable