You’ve probably heard the cliché: "The greatest good for the greatest number." It’s the kind of thing people parrot in ethics classes or during late-night debates about whether you should pull a lever to save five people by killing one. But honestly? That catchphrase actually belongs more to Jeremy Bentham than it does to the man who truly refined it. If you look closely at the John Stuart Mill utilitarianism theory, you’ll realize he wasn’t just a math nerd trying to calculate pleasure units. He was actually trying to save our souls from a life of mindless indulgence.
Mill was a bit of a prodigy, or perhaps more accurately, a victim of an intense educational experiment. His dad, James Mill, and his godfather, Bentham, basically raised him in a library. By age three, he was learning Greek. By eight, he’d read Aesop’s Fables and Herodotus in the original language. It’s no wonder the guy had a massive mental breakdown in his early twenties. He realized that even if all his political goals were met, he still wouldn’t be happy. This crisis is what transformed his version of utilitarianism into something much more human, nuanced, and—frankly—useful for us today.
The "Pig Philosophy" Problem
Before Mill stepped in, critics hated utilitarianism. They called it a "pig philosophy." Why? Because if the goal is just to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, then a pig living in a pile of warm mud with endless corn is living a "better" life than a human struggling with art, heartbreak, and complex thoughts.
Bentham famously said that "quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry." Push-pin was just a silly child's game. To Bentham, if playing a mindless game made you just as happy as reading Shakespeare, they were worth the exact same amount.
Mill hated this. He thought it was garbage.
In his 1861 work Utilitarianism, he introduced the idea of higher and lower pleasures. This is the core of the John Stuart Mill utilitarianism theory. He argued that some types of pleasure are inherently more valuable than others because they engage our higher faculties. It’s not just about how much pleasure you get; it’s about the quality of that pleasure.
He wrote that famous line: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."
Think about it. If you could take a pill that made you feel 10/10 bliss for the rest of your life but turned your brain into mush—no memories, no complex thoughts, no real relationships—would you take it? Most of us wouldn't. That "no" is the heart of Mill’s argument. We value the "higher" stuff—intellect, feelings, imagination, moral sentiments—way more than just physical comfort.
How do you actually tell which pleasure is better?
Mill had a surprisingly practical answer for this. He called it the "competent judges" test.
👉 See also: Getting a Mens Tattoo Lower Stomach: The Truth About Pain, Placement, and What No One Tells You
Basically, if you want to know if Mozart is better than a TikTok trend, you ask someone who has experienced both. If people who have deeply experienced both types of pleasure almost always choose one over the other—even if the chosen one comes with a bit of "discontent"—then that’s the superior pleasure.
Is it elitist? Maybe a little. But Mill’s point was that once people develop their higher faculties, they don't want to go back to being "pigs." We have a sense of dignity.
The Harm Principle: The Link to Liberty
You can't really talk about the John Stuart Mill utilitarianism theory without mentioning his other big hit, On Liberty. For Mill, utilitarianism wasn't just a personal vibe; it was a political blueprint.
He didn't think the government should force people to be happy. Instead, he argued for the "Harm Principle." This is the idea that the only time power should be exercised over someone against their will is to prevent harm to others.
Wait. How does that fit with "the greatest good"?
Mill was playing the long game. He believed that a society that allows individuals to experiment with their lives—even if they make mistakes—is ultimately happier than a society that forces everyone to conform. He called these "experiments in living." By letting people be weird, we discover new ways of being happy that benefit everyone in the long run.
Social progress is a product of utility.
📖 Related: Why Brown Hair with Blonde Peekaboo Highlights Underneath Is Still the Best Low-Maintenance Move
Why Mill Still Matters in 2026
We live in a world of algorithmic pleasure. Apps are designed to give us those "lower" pleasures—quick hits of dopamine, endless scrolling, outrage cycles. We are, in a sense, being turned into "satisfied pigs."
Mill acts as a warning. He reminds us that a life lived entirely on the surface is a wasted life. When we look at modern ethics—like how we should handle AI or climate change—the John Stuart Mill utilitarianism theory gives us a framework. It’s not just about "will this make people happy right now?" It’s about "will this help humanity flourish in a way that respects our higher capabilities?"
Common Misconceptions About Mill
- He was a cold calculator: Not true. Mill was deeply emotional and believed that internal feelings were the ultimate foundation of morality.
- He wanted to ban "low" pleasures: No. He just thought we should prioritize the higher ones. He’d probably still watch a trashy reality show, but he’d tell you to read a book afterward.
- It's all about the individual: Actually, Mill was a huge proponent of social justice. He was one of the first male philosophers to argue for women's right to vote in The Subjection of Women. He believed that excluding half the population from "higher pleasures" was a massive loss of utility for the whole world.
The Limits of the Theory
Of course, Mill isn't perfect. Critics like G.E. Moore or later philosophers like Bernard Williams pointed out some holes. For one, the "competent judges" thing is pretty subjective. What if the judges disagree?
And then there’s the "integrity" problem. If utilitarianism says you must do whatever creates the most good, does that mean you have to give away all your money until you're just as poor as the people you're helping? Mill tried to balance this with common sense, but the tension between "doing the most good" and "living your own life" is still a massive debate in ethics.
How to Apply Mill to Your Life Today
If you want to actually use the John Stuart Mill utilitarianism theory rather than just write an essay about it, start with these shifts in your daily decision-making:
- Audit your pleasures. Look at how you spend your time. Are you chasing "pig pleasures" (mindless consumption) or "human pleasures" (learning, creating, connecting)? Try to shift the ratio by 10% this week.
- The "Judge" Test. Before you commit to a new habit or purchase, ask someone who has "been there, done that." Don't ask a kid if candy is better than a healthy meal; ask an adult who has lived through the consequences of both.
- Defend the weirdness. Apply the Harm Principle in your social circles. If someone is doing something "weird" that doesn't hurt anyone, leave them be. Better yet, see if their "experiment in living" has something to teach you.
- Think about the "Long Utility." When faced with a moral choice, don't just ask what feels good now. Ask what choice supports the kind of world where people can develop their best selves.
Mill’s life was a testament to the fact that reason isn't enough. You need poetry, you need art, and you need a sense of purpose. He took a cold, mechanical theory and gave it a heartbeat. That’s why we’re still talking about him while Bentham’s preserved body—yes, his literal skeleton is in a glass box at University College London—is just a curiosity. Mill’s ideas are what actually survived.