Higher Pleasures and Lower Pleasures

While all people seek happiness, some pleasures are more worthy of human beings than others. The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) contested this notion by saying: “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry” (1825, quoted in Barber, 2011, p. 76). Bentham’s fellow citizen and philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) disagreed, arguing that there are higher pleasures and lower pleasures and that people, as rational beings, should pursue the former rather than the latter.

Despite having different views on the nature of happiness, both Bentham and Mill adopted utilitarianism, which is the moral theory that says we should always act in a way that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This essay will explore the similarities and differences between Bentham’s and Mill’s hedonistic theories. As such, it will examine Mill’s conception of lower pleasures and higher pleasures and analyze his testing method for ranking them. Similarly, it will evaluate Bentham’s hedonistic approach and discuss some of the objections that can be raised against it. Finally, it will explain why Bentham’s hedonism can be seen as too egalitarian, while Mill’s hedonism can be seen as too moralistic.

Many philosophers have argued that the ultimate goal of human beings is happiness. However, it was Bentham who first formulated a moral theory that purported to measure the utility (or usefulness) of possible actions, by calculating the quantity (or amount) of pleasures they contained. In his influential book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Bentham proclaimed that “[n]ature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (quoted in Barber, 2011, p. 183). As the founder of utilitarianism, Bentham “equated well-being with pleasure and the absence of pain, and advocated doing whatever had the greatest utility in this sense” (Barber, 2011, p. 52). Besides his concern with maximizing pleasure for individuals, Bentham was also concerned with the happiness of the community, which included things such as freedom and security. For him, the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people was through the creation of law that would promote happiness and prevent pain.

Mill adopted Bentham’s utilitarian approach and sought to improve it. His Great Happiness Principle, which he developed in his book Utilitarianism (1861), holds that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (quoted in Cottingham, 2008, p. 513). Mill equated happiness with pleasure and absence of pain and saw eye to eye with Bentham on many political and social issues. For example, both of them adopted egalitarian social policies “to rid society of arbitrary social inequalities by taking the pleasure and pain of every member of society into account” (The Open University, 2020a). However, each had different views of utilitarianism’s key element: hedonism.

Hedonism, as endorsed by Bentham, is one of the two elements that constitute utilitarianism; the other is consequentialism. Consequentialism says that the right thing to do, in any given situation, is “the action that is most likely to produce the best consequences” (The Open University, 2020a). Hedonism, on the other hand, says that one situation is better than another if it “contain[s] more overall happiness, where happiness is understood as the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain” (the more pleasure, the better; the more pain, the worse) (Barber, 2011, p. 200). Thus, Bentham focused only on the quantity of derived pleasure or pain, taking into account the intensity and duration of each, but not their quality.

Bentham articulated his hedonistic approach in his 1825 essay The Rationale of Reward, where he proclaimed that the game of push-pin was of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry, and if it provided more pleasure, it was more valuable than either (cited in Barber, 2011, p. 76). Mill, for his part, acknowledged that the quantity of pleasures was important (including intensity and duration) but rejected the claim that the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone. Hence, Mill was critical of Bentham’s quantitative hedonism, arguing that “some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others” (quoted in Cottingham, 2008, pp. 513-14). With this concern in mind, Mill introduced a revised version of hedonism: qualitative hedonism.

Mill distinguish between pleasures on the basis of quality and considered the pleasures that are derived from exercising our higher faculties, such as those that come from the intellect, higher pleasures, and the pleasures that are derived from our lower faculties, such as those that come from our “animalistic sensations”, lower pleasures (The Open university, 2020b). Mill held that the higher pleasures were more valuable than the lower ones and purported to show that hedonism can favor the former over the latter. To make his case, he devised the following test for ranking two pleasures that differ in quality. If competent judges (i.e., those who have experienced both types of pleasures) were asked to choose between a form of life based on higher pleasures and a form of life based on lower pleasures, they would never wish to sink into what they consider to be a “lower grade of existence” (quoted in Cottingham, 2008, p. 514).

Mill’s test for ranking pleasures that differ in quality has some limitations. For example, some of those who adopt a higher grade of existence, such as philosophers, may not meet Mill’s criterion of higher pleasures. “Perhaps there are joys to sport and eating that are beyond a die-hard intellectual’s ability to experience or imagine” (Barber, 2011, p. 78). Moreover, some of those who adopt a higher grade of existence might not give candid answers about their pleasure preferences, lest they be judged unfavorably (i.e., for fear that they may be seen as incompetent judges). Thus, Mill’s test could end up “turning on idiosyncratic prejudices rather than on genuine differences in the relative value of different source of pleasure” (Barber, 2011, p. 78).

Mill’s test is reminiscent of Socrates’s argument from superior judgment, which appeared in Plato’s Republic (c. 380 BC). This argument, which is based on Plato’s tripartite theory of the mind, sought to determine the kind of pleasure that ranked highest. ?

Socrates claims that the human mind is divided into three parts: the rational part that deals with reasoning; the passionate part that deals with emotions; and the desirous part that deals with our physical needs or appetites, such as food and sex. Each of these parts has its own object of desire, and the part that takes control of us determines our personality type. Thus, each one of us will be a different kind of person and will have a different kind of view of what constitutes the good life. Accordingly, Socrates sought to determine which kind of pleasure ranked highest, appealing to the judgment of each type of person. Socrates’s attempt has failed, however, because each person said that his pleasure is the best. However, when appealing to the most reasonable, intelligent, and experienced individuals (i.e., to the philosophers), Socrates found that they were in a better position to make wise decisions and hence enjoy a superior kind of pleasures.

When we choose a grade or a mode of existence, we do not just identify our priorities in life; rather, we choose a form of life that identifies who we are. Deciding how to identify ourselves raises a difficult question in philosophy: On what basis should we choose one form of life over another? Many thinkers have argued that it should be based on the single defining attribute that sets human beings apart from all other animals: rationality. Arguably, Bentham’s hedonistic approach is too simplistic because it does not take into account the complexity of human emotions, motivations, and intellectual capacity. The following are some objections that can be raised against Bentham’s approach.

First, quantitative hedonism seems to favor physical indulgence over higher pursuits. Measuring pleasure in terms of quantity not quality may lead to unquenched dissatisfaction, as when one feels that he or she is feeling constantly unfulfilled and wanting more. For example, if my well-being were only determined by satisfying a base, carnal desire, then maximizing my happiness would depend on maximizing the quantity of pleasures that such experience would give rise to. The crucial question is would I ever be satisfied, or would I be trapped in a vicious cycle, where satisfaction becomes a scourge, rather than a bliss. Mill argues that a principle that has no higher purpose than quantitative pleasure, and no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit, is “a doctrine worthy only of swine” (quoted in Cottingham, 2008, p. 513).

Second, we cannot know the actual value of an activity by simply calculating the pleasure it generates. This is because pleasure is not the only thing that is valuable in life. To reduce the value of an activity to its capacity to produce pleasure risks downgrading many noble pursuits and upgrading undignified ones (Barber, 2011, pp. 67-69). For example, I study philosophy not because it gives me pleasure; I study philosophy because I think it is something worth doing, regardless of the pleasure or displeasure that it may give rise to.

Finally, some aesthetics have argued that the value of art cannot be based on pleasure but on some other value, “yet to be fully disclosed” (Graham, 1997, p. 11). For example, it is said that “only art could bring us closer to ‘the inexpressible’ … the artist had a ‘universe-creating imagination.’ In his transports of artistic rapture he could sense the dissolving of the boundary between dream and reality” (Gaarder, 1996, p. 347). Given the sublime experience that art can generate, would it be reasonable to put the game of push-pin on a par with art appreciation? Which is more satisfying: an intense, durable feeling of pleasure or a brief, overwhelming feeling of happiness?

Despite the many arguments that can be raised against Bentham’s hedonistic approach, it is important that we be cautious about not confusing the value of contentment with the value of happiness. Contentment is not the same thing as happiness: the former is a state of satisfaction with one’s life; the latter is a more positive state of well-being. Mill argued that those who have low capacities of enjoyment have a greater chance of satisfying their desires, in contrast to those who have higher capacities, whose ideal object of desire is too high to attain. This kind of difficult-to-attain-satisfaction, Mill maintained, can lead to happiness, if it motivates people to strive for something more. If simple pleasure is what is at issue, Graham (1997, p. 8) argued, “art can at best be a contender for value and in all probability a rather weak one.” Having made such a distinction, Mill concluded that “valuable pursuits may leave us unsatisfied, but they do leave us happy ... ‘better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better be Socrates unsatisfied than a fool satisfied’” (quoted in Barber, 2011, p. 77). ?

What are we to make of Mills’s hedonistic approach? Is he full of prejudice or is he being a snob? One answer comes from Bentham himself: “Judges of elegance and taste consider themselves as benefactors to the human race, whilst they are really only the interrupters of their pleasure” (The Open University, 2020a). Some think that Mill interpreted Bentham uncharitably, while other have questioned his objectivity and accused him of taking Bentham’s opinion on pleasure out of context, as when the latter said: “Everybody can play at push-pin: poetry and music are relished only by a few” (quoted in Barber, 2011, p. 76).

Bentham and Mill wrote during the Industrial Revolution, which was a time of great social and economic change. Despite their different understanding of hedonism, both were interested in the question of how to achieve collective happiness in a changing world. Bentham, in particular, was a committed social reformer. He fought for the protection of children and animals and advocated the abolition of the death penalty and slavery. Many of his writings are driven by the injustice he saw in his society, which explains why utilitarianism is conceived as an egalitarian moral theory. Mill’s qualitative approach, on the other hand, is often seen as adopting an elitist or a non-egalitarian position. While different people possess different abilities, a safer stance, from an egalitarian point of view, would be to say that “even if there are [differences], that hardly warrants assigning greater weight to the preferences of the more able (Barber, 2011, p. 79).

To sum up, utilitarianism, as a union of hedonism and consequentialism, was an innovative moral theory in that it focused not just on maximizing individual happiness but also on maximizing collective happiness. Bentham’s quantitative hedonism equated well-being with pleasure and the absence of pain, focusing primarily on the quantity of pleasure. This may be attributed to his egalitarian worldview, rather than a call for physical indulgence. Mill, by contrast, held that the value of life is more than a balance of pleasure over pain. He argued that competent judges favor higher pleasures over lower pleasures and concluded that higher pleasures are superior in quality. While Mill may be seen as privileging certain types of pleasures over others, his distinction between higher and lower pleasures can help to us to think about the value of different types of experiences.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not there is a distinction between higher and lower pleasures remains a matter of philosophical debate. It is fair to say, however, that the decision of whether or not to pursue a particular pleasure is a personal one. Moreover, the value of pleasure can change over time and it varies as we mature and develop our tastes. Learning about Bentham’s and Mill’s utilitarian approaches may help us make better choices about the pleasures we pursue in our lives, especially during a time of great social and economic change.

References

Barber, A. (2011) Ethics, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Cottingham, J. (2008) Western Philosophy An Anthology, 2nd edition, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Gaarder, J. (1996) Sophie’s World, NY, Berkley Books.

Graham, G. (1997) Philosophy of the Arts, NY, Routledge.

The Open University (2020a) “Book 3 Quiz for Chapter 2” [Text], A222 Exploring Philosophy. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/quiz/review.php?attempt=3733289&cmid=1460195 (Accessed: January 9, 2020).

The Open University (2020b) “Plato on justice and self-interest” [Audio], A222 Exploring Philosophy. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/2707248/mod_resource/content/1/a222_2011j_b3_aud001.mp3 (Accessed: January 13, 2020).

Hashtags: #utilitarianism #hedonism #consequentialism #JeremyBentham #JohnStuartMill