Three objections John Stuart Mill cites that are commonly used against Utilitarianism are that it is overburdensome, makes one unsympathetic to where actions emanate and is an expedient ideology.
Mill states that “They (objectors) say that it is exacting to much to require people should always act from the inducement of promoting the general interestsof society”. Here, Mill clearly demonstrates and puts forth the common accusation that is leveled against utilitarianism, that it is overburden some to assign each individual to live
constantly doing what is the greater good for society. This might be a more egoistic approach to ethics, the doctrine stating that people will only act out of self interest. Mill refutes this argument by claiming it a misinterpretation of utilitarianism principles and of ethics to level such a criticism against the philosophy. Mill states “The great majority of good are not intended for the benefit of the greater world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up”…Mill is exhibiting through his statement that utilitarianism does not require each individual to serve the general population every day, but rather but each individual acting to benefit even one other soul, collectively that would multiply and benefit humankind for the greater good of the world. He argues that one need not even be conscious of the benefit in his positive actions’ effect on the world for it to be part of the utilitarian idea.
Mill also points to a another criticism charged against utilitarianism, that it renders one “cold and unsympathizing, … that it makes them regard only the dry and hard considerations of their actions, not taking into their moral estimate the qualities from which those actions emanate” Mill seems to be saying that people think of utilitarians that they are robot like in their judgment of right and wrong and don’t get to the roots nor the origin of where an action came from. Mill refutes this argument by saying that it goes against all morality, not simply utilitarianism to formulate a judgment about the morality of an action based on who do it and be bias towards the action based on whether it was done by a good or bad man. “If the assertion means that they do not allow their judgment respecting the rightness and wrongness of an action to be influenced by their opinion of the qualities of the person who does it, than this is not a complaint against utilitarianism, but against any standard of morality at all”. Mill later states that no truly ethical standard can judge an action based on whether the person has a good reputation and not look at the substance of the action. Mill emphatically argues that this would in a way wipe out basis for morality and leave morality simply to favoritism and irrationally influenced decisions.
The final argument leveled against utilitarianism which Mill clearly cites is the idea that utilitarianism is “expedient”. This seems to mean that utilitarianism is a self benefiting, convenient ideology that simply benefits those who buy into it. Mill argues against this point however by stating that expedient refers to a particular agent and his interest. Giving a clear example, Mill states “…that which is expedient for the particular interest of the agent himself; as when a minister sacrifices the interests of his country to keep himself in place” Mill goes on to state that it can also refer to temporary needs or some immediate object but does not apply to the utilitarian point of view.
