Mill's Competent Judges Test Essay

For centuries, the moral philosophy of Utilitarianism has faced many challenges. Among the challenges is the criticism that utilitarianism promotes the lowest level of human moral life including sacrificing the one for many. In addition, Utilitarianism is also criticized to reduce humans to the lowest level that they are not even better than animals in the hunt for physical pleasure (Dorsey 78). Although John Stuart Mill advocated and defended Utilitarianism, his account of hedonism is very ambiguous. The most ambiguous concept is the reliance on the notion of quality of pleasure. According to Mill's higher pleasures doctrine, there is no theory, which does not assign the moral sentiments and the life pleasures of the intellect a higher value of pleasure compared to those of mere consciousness of physical pleasures (153). He further states that some superiority can be based on the fact that particular pleasures are more valuable and desirable to others (Holowchak 153). Thus, the primary concept becomes the pleasurable quality that Mill uses to explain using the competent judges. Education or intellectual preferences is the highest good since when people are morally educated they faculties of mind would demand that they become more sensitive to others and intellect by sacrificing for the good of the all. People would be more willing to sacrifice their needs and preferences to carry the good gestures and goodwill for all. The aim in this paper is to explore how John Stuart Mill uses the competent judge standard to determine that all persons should be morally educated and have their sentiments developed such that one would never choose to act in a way that would harm others to benefit oneself nor would one be willing to sacrifice an individual for good for all. Using Mill's competent judge's test, I will be able to explain the notion that Mill uses when it comes to the nature of human well-being.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The nature of quality is mainly linked to decisions of competent judges. The more desirable pleasure looks to be the one chosen by individuals who are competently acquainted by both intellectual and physical pleasures (Dorsey 78). Mill does not claim that lower quality pleasures may be undesirable or invaluable, but he argues that the quality of the property determines the kind of pleasurable experiences that are better than the others. Mill states that the higher quality may not only be valuable as physical pleasures but because one may choose the higher pleasure rather than, the lower pleasure (Dorsey 78). Within higher pleasure experiences Mill includes intellectual pleasures that have utility components including quality, intensity, and duration (Mill 337). To determine the pleasures that are of better, he uses the competitive judge's test that states that, for one to determine if one pleasure is better than the other one, he or she must have experienced both pleasures. When most of the competent judges consider one pleasure to be higher than the other pleasure then under the utility-scale, it would be ranked higher and be the most preferred.

According to Mill, the belief that individuals who have a preference of the physical pleasures than intellectual pleasures have never experienced intellectual pleasure are not the best competent judges is true (Mill 337). However, when everything is considered equal, low-quality pleasures are considered to be less desirable than more quality pleasures. Mill writes that the society needs to be building in a way that people recognize and understand their independence. To do this, people would be required to love their neighbors, and this involves the ideal morality seen in Utilitarian morality (Mill 339). To make this approach an ideal utility, social arrangements and laws must place the interest and happiness of each as close as possible without forgetting the interest of the whole society. However, between both the intellectual and the physical pleasures, if individuals who have experienced both give their preference, despite any feeling of moral obligation, most people will choose the more desirable pleasure. Besides, if one of the individuals has experienced both pleasures and he is placed above the one they prefer, there would be a greater discontent, and they may not resign their pleasure for any quantity of the other pleasure (Dorsey 80). Thus, individuals who are capable of enjoying and appreciating both pleasures, or have in the past experienced both pleasures would give a higher preference that determines their higher faculties.

Preferences which are undesirable usually take place at a sacrifice of the happiness. A human being will know and compare both sides while a pig will only know their side of the question because they are of a different opinion (Mill 342). Mill claims that all competent judges would prefer less instead of more swine like pleasures. The primary psychological reason why people choose the non-swine characters instead of swine-like characters is because of their sense of dignity, which human beings have in one form or another. Mill states that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied rather than become a pig that is satisfied (Mill 355). This means that Mill castoff the relativism of higher pleasure, and since most competent judges will prefer non-swine like pleasures, such pleasers are of more quality and better for everyone. Thus, mill does believe that life has no a higher end and pursue the pleasures of the beast, meaning the swine like character are thereby of lower quality and less valuable.

So far, two facets of competent judges' test merit more analysis. Mill further maintains that when it comes to quality, competent judges may not be guaranteed. He writes, "few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of the beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs," (Mill 367). This means that although few human characters may consent to swine like pleasures, no instructed, virtuous and intelligent people would be willing. One may question that an individual who is susceptible to both pleasures may prefer the lower pleasure or preference (Holowchak 156). This means that competent judges may diverge and Mill cannot guarantee that competent judges can be unanimous. Another notable feature put forward by Mill is that competent judges can diverge based on the quality of pleasures and preferences (Holowchak 156). In case of disagreement between competent judges, relativism of higher pleasures will result. Therefore, it is essential to know that during divergence, one should identify the higher pleasures properly.

Therefore, through the ethics of utilitarian, as seen in the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, loving your neighbor as you love yourself is the best explanation of Utilitarian morality (Dorsey 85). Social arrangements and laws need to put people close to their interest and happiness together with harmony of the whole, and opinion and education that is the primary facet of power in human character can be established in human mind to enable them to differentiate between their own happiness and the good of the whole, mainly when his or her preferences and happiness has to be sacrificed (Dorsey 86). Such mode of conduct ensures individuals are not able to pursue happiness of their own because it opposes the moral obligations and general good of the whole. If Utilitarian morality is represented in the minds of people, they would affirm to any other form of morality or ethical system. Thus, mill sees that when education is the highest good for making since when people are morally educated they faculties of mind would demand that they become more sensitive to others and intellect by sacrificing for the good of the all (Mill 80). People would be more willing to sacrifice their needs and preferences to carry the good gestures and goodwill for all.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the nature of quality is mainly linked to decisions of competent judges. Mill argues that if one of the individuals has experienced both pleasures and he is placed above the one they prefer, there would be a greater discontent, and they may not resign their pleasure for any quantity of the other pleasure. This means that individuals who are capable of enjoying and appreciating both physical and intellectual pleasures, or have in the past experienced both pleasures would give a higher preference that determines their higher faculties. Therefore, the society needs to be built in a way that people recognize and understand their independence. To do this, people would be required to love their neighbors, and this involves the ideal morality seen in Utilitarian morality. However, between the physical and intellectual pleasures, if individuals who have experienced both give their preference, despite any feeling of moral obligation, most people will choose the more desirable pleasure. But according to Mill, the preferences which are undesirable usually take place at a sacrifice of the happiness. Mills doctrine of philosophy claims that all competent judges would prefer less instead of more swine like pleasures. The primary psychological reason why people choose the non-swine characters instead of swine-like characters is because of their sense of dignity, which human beings have in one form or another. Thus, it is better to be a human being dissatisfied rather than being a pig satisfied. This means that education is the highest good for making since when people are morally educated they faculties of mind would demand that they become more sensitive to others and intellect by sacrificing for the good of the all. People would be more willing to sacrifice their needs and preferences to carry the good gestures and goodwill for all. But still, competent judges may diverge and Mill cannot guarantee that competent judges can be unanimous and a case of disagreement between competent judges, relativism of higher pleasures will result.

Works Cited

Dorsey, Dale. "The authority of competence and quality as extrinsic." British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21.1 (2013): 78-99.

Holowchak, M. Andrew. "Excellence as athletic ideal: Autonomy, morality, and competitive sport." International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15.1 (2001): 153-164.

Mill, John Stuart. "Utilitarianism." Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy. Routledge, 2016. 337-383.