Question

In his book Utilitarianism, Mill famously stated: "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 of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."

Assess the validity of this statement. Do you agree with Mill? Why / why not?

Answer 1

I agree with Mill because in the process of defining higher pleasures and lower pleasures, in Utilitarianism, Mill suggests that only human beings would be able to attain higher order pleasure as it is connected with intellectual ability, creativity, problem solving etc. Lower level pleasures are very much physical which animals of any kind would experience. This would mean that in the process of attaining for higher pleasures, human beings would endure, failures, stress, setbacks which may make them dissatisfied but it doesn’t mean that they should enjoy only the lower order pleasures and remain in the animalistic state. If Shakespeare is dissatisfied, it’s because he is working towards achieving a higher-level pleasure by completing one of his works. So, Mill is right in stating that 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 of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.

Thank you for the question. Please rate if you like the answer.