Utilitarianism

Mill talks about utilitarianism— The Greatest Happiness Principle, which says that actions are right as long as they promote happiness, which is described as pleasure and the absence of pain. Actions are wrong when they promote unhappiness. All desirable things are either desired for the pleasure they will bring or prevention of the pain. But to say life has no meaning but pleasure seems like a believe worthy of swine. The accusers have claimed that humans are not capable of pleasures that swine don’t also have. However, as Mill points out, some pleasures are more desirable and valuable than others. As human beings, the things that make us happy and bring us joy are not the same as the things that make pigs happy. I don’t believe that utilitarianism is a pig philosophy as Mill makes distinctions between us and them. As beings of higher faculties, we require more to make us happy and are capable of more intense suffering. I think of it like that saying that’s like, you can’t have light without dark. As humans we have experienced very low lows that help but the highs into perspective.
Mills explanation for some choosing lower pleasures over higher pleasures is that when the capacities of enjoyment are lower, they are more likely to be completely satisfied. And those with higher capacities of enjoyment are more likely to feel dissatisfied. But “it is better to be a human being satisfied than a pig satisfied” (Paragraph 8). He proposes a few arguments but they all end with him concluding that people will not choose lower pleasures instead of the higher. I agree with him — as someone who has experiences high highs and low lows, I know neither of them would be as impactful if the highs were lower. Human beings get to experience a lot of things that pigs don’t, and I don’t think many people would trade it just for a “simpler life”.