sublime

Note: Intro to Ethics philosophy final paper (aka the worst class and hardest paper I’ve ever had to write). Discussing the satisfied pig objection. October 2017.

Mill’s utilitarianism states that actions are only right if they produce as much pleasure as possible, and wrong if they promote displeasure. The foundation of utilitarianism bases itself on the consequences of actions and fulfillments of desires. What the satisfied pig objection states that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied; better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Utilitarianism contradicts itself through the Satisfied Pig Objection, and does so in several ways. First, Socrates vs. the fool: why Mill says it is better to be Socrates, and why it is actually better to be the fool. Next, desires directly or indirectly leading to other desires does not prove the value of the desires themselves. Finally, why competent judges are important, and why Mill is wrong about them.

In Mill’s essay, he states “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, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.” According to Mill, it is better to be Socrates because although he is dissatisfied, he still partakes in the greater pleasures in life. In reality, it is actually better to be the fool because he is satisfied. If pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and pain is the only intrinsic bad, how is it better to be Socrates if he experiences more pain than pleasure? Clearly, according to utilitarianism, it is better to be the fool, because he experiences more pleasure. Stating that it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied directly contradicts utilitarianism.

Mill next says “Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties… no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool… even though they should be persuaded that the fool…is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs.” Mill is suggesting this is a universal agreement. No human being would ever say that they would prefer to live the highest of lives as a beast than the lowest as a human. One pleasure has higher value over the other, but not everybody can agree - some would prefer the pig’s life. The lowest of human lives could be living in poverty, constant starvation, disease, and loneliness. The highest of pig lives could be eating until it cannot eat anymore, doing nothing all day, and pursuing all of the pleasures a pig may seek. According to Mill, the latter is a less valuable life than the former. How is this so? Clearly, the latter is a much more valuable life than the former, according to utilitarianism, because the pig’s life produces much more happiness than the human’s life. Mill does not prove that one is of higher worth than the other. Even if everyone did agree that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, it would only prove that people have a common preference, not that one has more worth than the other.

A different way of evaluating a desire is to see whether or not the fulfillment of one desire leads indirectly to the fulfillment of another. desires themselves have value according to how well they fulfill other desires. Mill states “The great majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he is not violating the rights, that is, the legitimate and authorised expectations, of anyone else.” Mill is stating that other motives other than utility can drive actions. There are, however, some actions that can be evaluated for its value and usefulness by its ability to fulfill and tend to other desires indirectly. For example, some people do not want wealth for the general utility of having money and being able to use it. Some want wealth because it can indirectly lead to fame, another desire one may have.

This can be traced back to the Satisfied Pig Objection in the sense that Socrates dissatisfied, or a wealthy person dissatisfied, according to Mill, is better off than a poor person satisfied. The wealthy person values things such as material possessions over friendship, and that is why they are dissatisfied. On the other hand, the poor person values friendship over material possessions, which makes them satisfied. Friendship is more fulfilling and is a desire that has more of a lasting impact once fulfilled, while material possessions have a short-lived impact. Furthermore, most would say that friendship holds a higher value than material possessions. If material possessions then have a lower value, Socrates (the wealthy) is pursuing lower pleasures, which again contradicts utilitarianism.

Lastly, Mill outlines the importance of a competent judge. A competent judge in utilitarianism is someone who is able to decide which pleasure out of a set of pleasures is the greater. They are able to decide because they have experienced both pleasures. Competent judges are important to utilitarianism because it supposedly indicates the value of certain pleasures.

If a majority of competent judges tend to choose one of them over the other, that supposedly solves the problem of which is the greater pleasure. Mill then goes on to state that those who choose physical or lower pleasures typically do not indulge in intellectual or higher pleasures.  This can be disproved in the sense that different people have different personalities and different ideas of fun.

Take a math teacher and an English teacher. Say both of these teachers love to watch NFL football every weekend. Now, if both of these teachers were given the choice of either A: never do math above simple addition and subtraction again, or B: never watch football again, both teachers will have different responses. The math teacher would say they would never watch football again, because mathematics is what they do in their position of employment. They generally enjoy the topic because they teach it, and they would rather not watch football over lose their job. The English teacher on the other hand would say they would never do math again, but would not give up watching football. This is because mathematics is not a large part of their lives. They would consider football a bigger part of their life and would rather give mathematics up.

Does this go to say that the English teacher is incapable of higher pleasures such as mathematics? Absolutely not. The English teacher has most likely done advanced math, and can understand it, but it is not their field of study most likely because they do not enjoy it. Additionally (pun intended), the English teacher pursues higher pleasures in the field of literature. If they were given the choice of to never read again or never watch football again, of course the English teacher would choose to never watch football, because reading is important to them and their profession. Both of these teachers are competent judges because they have experiences both mathematics and experienced watching NFL football, but just because one chooses the so-called higher pleasure and the other chooses the so-called lower pleasure does not necessarily indicate that one usually chooses the higher pleasure. It just depends on personality and situation.  

The pleasures certain people choose does not determine the value of the pleasure. Different people have different desires they want to be fulfilled.

To summarize, Mill says it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. This directly contradicts utilitarianism because happiness is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic evil, so it does not make sense for it to be better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Next, Mill suggests that one can directly evaluate desires by examining universal or majority agreement. However, universal agreement does not prove the worth of a desire or pleasure. He also suggests that one can examine how well one desire indirectly fulfills another, but again, it does not prove the worth of that desire. Finally, Mill says that competent judges usually pursue the higher or intellectual pleasures instead of the lower or physical pleasures. It is impossible for this to always be the case, because people have different interests and value certain things over others. Throughout Mill’s essay on Utilitarianism, he constantly contradicts himself, even when he is trying to disprove someone else’s argument. The Satisfied Pig Objection shows in itself, utilitarianism contradicts itself. It is not better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. However, it surely is better to be happy rolling around in the mud as a pig than it is to do calculus all day long and hate your life, and that is a plain fact.

Bib:

Nativity, Piero della Francesca (circa 1470-1475)

The song of angels and the chords of lutes rise under a cerulean sky. Almost no shadows in this vibrant scene bathed in holy light.