It is better to be a Human Being Dissatisfied than a Pig Satisfied
In this essay, I will discuss what John Stuart Mill means by “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. If the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides”.
First, I will discuss utilitarianism as defined and explained by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is defined as follows: “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Mill, 2016). According to John, one should differentiate right from wrong, based on the outcome. Also, the most ethical choice is the one that produces the highest good for the greatest number. Therefore, is one is in a moral dilemma; the option that is likely to cause happiness to the highest number of people is the right option. Thus, in utilitarianism, the end justifies the means.
When John stated that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, he was responding to misconceptions about utilitarianism. John observes that a majority of people mistake utilitarianism by misinterpreting utility. Therefore, he delineates the theory to help people get the real meaning of utilitarianism.
John states that the pleasures of a beast cannot satisfy a human being’s conceptions of happiness. “Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything like happiness, which does not include their gratification” (Mill, 2016). Thus, Mill argues that human beings, unlike animals, have a conscience that enables them to make moral decisions. Although utilitarianism measures an ethical choice by the consequences, human beings have the rationale to take into account the quantity and quality of outcomes resulting from an action.
John further urges human beings to strive to achieve their full potential without fear of the unknown. For instance, Socrates spent his seeking a higher truth, than the one people had been trained to believe (Fred, 1995). Socrates attempted to establish an ethical system that was based on human reasoning rather than religious doctrine. As a result, Socrates was accused of poisoning the minds of the youth and he was sentenced to death. Despite his death, Socrates had fulfilled a greater good for a greater number of people. If Socrates would have been a satisfied fool, he would not have founded the philosophical schools of moral thinking. Just like Socrates, human beings should be more thoughtful and make better choices with full consideration of the consequences. Human beings who go through life without thinking are even in greater danger than Socrates, who was sentenced to death for thinking outside societal boundaries. I believe that Mill was explaining the utilitarianism stands for much more than pleasure. Similar to the case of Socrates, happiness can be attained from a painful experience. Socrates was determined to prove that knowledge and wisdom are essential in the lives of human beings, and he did not fear death or ridicule, like most people of his time.
In conclusion, I think Mill wanted to challenge human beings to arise from their comfort zone and think outside societal boundaries. Human beings should have an insatiable curiosity to enable them to make discoveries. When people become satisfied, ignorance overtakes the mind, and human beings become unable to progress.
Bibliography
- Fred Feldman, A Cartesian Introduction to Philosophy,McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing; USA, 1995 p.437
- Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy(pp. 337-383). Routledge.