Virtue can be pleasurable....

In chapter four of Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, the philosopher explores the contention between desiring pleasure and desiring virtue. In order to do this he further defines the notion of happiness as “the only thing desirable as an end; all other things being desirable as a means to that end” (35). Does this mean morality is subsidiary to happiness? Mill answers this question by explaining that the relationship between virtue and vice correlate to the one between pleasure and pain. Virtue and pleasure are the equivalent because both are means for happiness, in the same manner that the absence of vice and pain lead to happiness. What’s even more controversial than this the idea that virtue and pleasure can be one in the same, is that in a person can desire virtue for itself (36). For example, I can desire virtuousness by becoming a nun for the sake of the virtues that type of life entails. Becoming a nun was the means to attaining virtue and therefore achieving happiness. According to Mill, anything that is desired for its own sake is craved for as a part of happiness (38). Desiring virtue is initially a means to happiness but can become a part of happiness as shown in the example above.

The contention between pleasures and virtue encompasses one of the susceptibilities for the proof of utility. Mill believes that it is a “physical and metaphysical impossibility” to desire things other than in proportion the pleasure it offers (39). This means that the only reason a person would desire virtue is because it offers some degree of pleasure. Even if leading a life of virtue means leading a life with less personal happiness. As the philosopher explains in previous chapters of this essay, the noble person is the best means to happiness because they sacrifice their own desires for the sake of a greater food. The notion of virtue is something that is different for every person. Does the doctrine of utility account for these different and sometimes even conflicting notions of virtuousness? For example, a pro-life activist believes virtue means preserving life at all cost. When a baby is conceived, abortion is an act of murder in this notion of virtue. However, a pro-choice activist believes virtue means sparing life for a greater good. When a sick a person is suffering, helping them pass on is the virtuous thing to under a pro-choice ideal. What is the greater good in this case? With which notion of virtue would the doctrine of utility agree with?

Where's the Proof, Sidgwick?

In this reading, Sidgwick defines Utilitarianism and tries to come up with the proof of Utilitarianism. Sidgwick puts forth that Utilitarianism is the conduct that “will produce the greatest amount of happiness on the whole,” or greatest amount of happiness of all whose happiness is affected (408). In this manner, Sidgwick also defines the greatest happiness as the greatest possible surplus of pleasure over pain (409). In this definition, we can all see the inherent problem: it is hard to compare the pleasure and pains of different people/beings. How can we deny the happiness of one person over the happiness of another? To clarify this point, Sidgwick explains to make the number enjoying the happiness as great as possible, weighing happiness gained by the majority against happiness lost by the remainder. But does everyone’s happiness count equally? Sidgwick is with Bentham saying, “Everybody count for one and nobody for more than one” (412).
In the second chapter of this reading, Sidgwick looks to find the proof of Utilitarianism, asking the question, “Why should we live for the happiness of the greatest number and not just for our own happiness?” (414) This is a big problem that Sidgwick does not exactly answer. Admitting that Common Sense says that we should seek our own happiness, Sidgwick answers that “it cannot be proved that the difference between his own happiness and another’s happiness is not for him all-important” (416). To prove to an egoist that utilitarianism is superior would only be to make an egoist accept that utilitarianism is a mean to his end (his own happiness). In other words, the happiness of the greatest number will probably include his happiness; therefore, the egoist can accept this theory. The egoist believes that “nature designed him to seek his own happiness” to which Sidgwick responds that one person’s happiness cannot be a more important part of Good, universally, than the equal happiness of any other person. With all these problems with finding a proof, Sidgwick wants to find a synthesis that binds unconnected and conflicting principles of common moral reasoning into a complete and harmonious system (418). Sidgwick never really does this though. Sidgwick comes to a quick conclusion that common sense proves Utilitarianism. He concludes that the proof of Utilitarianism is that the morality of Common Sense is exhibits the Utilitarian principle that common sense naturally appeals to (418). In other words, common sense follows the conventions of Utilitarianism, so Utilitarianism must be true, given this proof.