Objection

Page 17: To suppose that life has no higher end than pleasure no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit they designate as utterly grovelling; as a doctrine worthy only of swine.

Mills response
A beast pleasures do not satisfy human conception of happiness higher human faculties. Pleasures of intellect, imagination and moral sentiments above sensation. Some kinds of pleasure are more valuable and desirable than others A highly endowed being will always feel that nay happiness he can for is imperfect. Better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Infirmity of character men make their election for the nearer good though they know it to be less valuable. Men lose their higher aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes no time, addicted to inferior pleasures, menial job, no education. On the question which is the best worth having of two pleasures the judgement of those who have had experience of both must be admitted as final.

Page 19: Many who are capable of the highest pleasures postpone them to the lower

Page 20: Happiness cannot be the rational purpose of human life and action; because, in the first place, it is unattainable. Men can do without happiness

Utility includes not solely the pursuit of happiness but mitigation of unhappiness. Happiness need not be highly pleasurable excitement but rather an existence made up of few pains and many various pleasures. Next to selfishness the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory is want of mental cultivation. Everyone who has this moderate amount of moral and intellectual requisites is capable of an existence which may be called enviable. Confounds the rule of action with motives Sole motive does not need to be feelings of duty. Motive has nothing to do with morality. The great majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that individual. Only rare circumstances when one is called on to be public benefactor does public utility need to be considered in every other case private utility is all one has to attend to.

Page 23: It is expecting too much to require that people shall always act from the inducement of promoting the general interest of society.

Page 25: Utilitarianism is a godless doctrine.

If it be true that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, utilityis more profoundly religious than any other. Revelation was intended, and is fitted, to inform the hearts and minds of mankind with a spirit which should enable them to find for themselves what is right. We need a doctrine of ethics to interpret to us the will of God.

Page 25: Utilitarianism instructs people to do what is expedient to their own interests rather than to stand fast by principle.

Page 24: Utilitarianism renders men cold and unsympathising that it makes them regard only the dry and hard consideration of the consequences of actions

Page 24: Utilitarian standard does not lay sufficient stress upon the other beauties of character which go towards making a human being lovable.

Violation, for a present advantage, of a rule of such transcendent expediency, is not expedient, and that he who, for the sake of convenience to himself, deprives mankind of the good, and inflict upon them evil, involved in the greater or less reliance which they can place in each others words and acts. Possible exceptions lying to save an individual or oneself from unmerited evil. Utilitygood for weighing these conflicting utilities against one another. If this means they do not allow their judgement of right and wrong to be influenced by the qualities of the person concerned, this complaint is not against utilitarianism but against having a standard of morality at all. Utilitarians are aware that there are other desirable qualities besides virtue. They are also aware that a right action does not necessarily indicate a virtuous character The best proof of a good character is good actions. Utilitarians, who have cultivated their moral feelings, but not their sympathies or artistic perceptions, do fall into this mistake and so do all other moralists. Different standards of morality are likely now and then to differ. Utilitarianism provides mode of deciding such differences.

Page 26: Objection: there is not time, previous to action, for calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness.

There has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species. During all that time mankind has been learning by experience. All rational creatures go out upon the sea of life with their minds made up on the common questions of right and wrong.

Page 27: A utilitarian will be apt to make his own particular case an exception to moral rules.

Afforded in abundance by all doctrines. Not a fault of doctrines but human nature. Self-deception and dishonest casuistry always get in. Utility may be invoked to decide between conflicting obligations. Though the application of the standard may be difficult it is better than none at all. In other moral laws there is no common empire entitled to interfere. Their claims to precedence over one another rest on little better than sophistry and afford a freer scope for the action of personal partialities.