Question

Mill argues that utilitarianism requires us to be strictly impartial. That is to say, my own happiness and well being do not count any more than that of anyone else who will be affected by my actions, including complete strangers. But, according to this standard of strict impartiality, who else’s happiness doesn’t count any more than that of a complete stranger? Are all human beings all equally morally worthy, and worthy of equal moral consideration, by anyone? Is it ever right to give preferential treatment to some people (say, my children) from a moral perspective? Or, does Mill have it right, and does morality require impartiality, even when it leads to some really difficult choices?

Answer 1

Utilitarianism is a concept that proposes that any action is right if it produces happiness and wrong if it doesn’t. Although the statement that one should be impartial towards everyone even strangers may be right philosophically but when it comes to reality, it becomes very difficult for one to give-up on people who they know because blood is thicker than water. Although it’s not right to give preferences to people who we love or know well, ordinary people may not look at it that way.

People may not treat everyone in the same way because of the difference in their actions. For example, one may not treat a thief, a killer and an innocent man in the same way because a thief has to be punished, a killer has to be put behind the bar and at the same time an innocent man needs to be treated with respect.

Mill may be right in telling people to treat everyone impartially but it may not work with everyone as everyone would try to fight for their loved ones even when they are wrong because that’s how the human beings are constructed. Only exceptional human beings who have experienced self-actualization may be able to act with universal moral attitude where one treats everyone equally.