Mill approaches the utilitarian ideal by first stating the goal of human life and existence: happiness. As the book recalls, there is little actual ‘logic’ behind this notion, other than its seemingly intrinsic qualities within human nature. Actions are verified as being ‘just’ if they create the most possible happiness. However, further stipulations must be acknowledged in order for this to work; we must define justice in the context of the utilitarian perspective.

‘Justice,’ as Mill states ‘is a name for certain moral requirements which, regarded collectively, stand higher in the scale of social utility…’ This meaning that justice is a concept not of the individual, but born out of society and the interactions that take place within societies. This seems understandable; who would need justice unless other parties had differing interests? Furthermore, Mill states that in order for a society to function in a utilitarian fashion, those within must recognize the concept of duties. These communal duties, if they create ‘good’ for both parties, are recognized as being necessary or even obligatory. So it seems that this makes enough sense, right?

Let us now acknowledge the discrepancies of utilitarianism. The first is the claim of the goal of human life: happiness. How do we know this to be true? Reasoning can deter any sort of happiness, and happiness in itself is subjective in several manners. What are we to say if those that control the majority, and therefore ‘happiness,’ do not have others’ best intentions in mind, or are using an erroneous perspective of ‘logic’ (if such a thing exists)? Furthermore, how can anyone discern that by creating the most happiness now, that one is therefore creating the most happiness for the rest of eternity?

Mill tries to give a mathematical approach for measuring out happiness and it pertaining to society, calculating some such matters of the listed pros and cons of the matter, those involved, et cetera, but even Mill himself agreed that this was a lengthy process to be utilized in every endeavor. I think right here we encounter another problem; if Mill himself appears to be unsatisfied with his philosophy and the way it works, it is obviously illogical and therefore should no longer hold merit. But let us ignore this fact for now, and perceive that perhaps this judgment is in error, and further analyze the utilitarian approach toward justice. I have qualms with the fact that Mill does not account emotive intensity in this calculation of logic, and then further beyond that, those emotions need to be analyzed to see whether or not they hold any merit psychologically. Beyond this psychological decree, who is it that is saying what is emotionally acceptable, or is hysterical? Who is in their right minds, and who is not?

The textbook gives a good example of this error in logic in the situational circumstance of lynching an innocent man to prevent a festering potential of a race riot. I think another good example would be Hitler’s regime. Surely Hitler believed his purpose to be without falter, as did his followers. Were they all insane? What caused them to act in the way they did? Perhaps we are insane and they were correct in their assumptions? If a maniacal regime instills these utilitarian ideals into their society, is it then ‘just’ to eradicate those in submission or in the minority because there are more in the majority who believe it to be ‘right?’ What are the boundaries of society? If a society is subduing its own minority, and holds no diplomatic ties with any other society, but yet other societies know about it, is it the right of other societies to intervene beyond their own realms? What about those societies without a voice? Animals? Plants? Inanimate objects? Who knows what is right for them, and who can say that by cutting down these trees, to create these homes for these people, that furthering human society is the best possible option and will create the most happiness? What if instead the forest is subjected to a drought after the deforestation, causing it to die and animal populations to diminish? Does each individual plant and animal have a right to be happy? Are humans above them? Do animals even know what happiness is?

Utilitarianism, although surely trying to work for the good of humanity, leaves some very essential questions unanswered, creating a grand conception for error. While trying to solve the problems of human interaction, the utilitarian aspect only goes so far, which, when dealing with the depth of human consciousness and understanding, is nowhere near far enough. As we analyze the utilitarian approach toward justice, more and more it seems illogical and full of flaws. There appears to be too grand a scale of interests, too deep the emotions of human lives, and too detrimental the potential outcomes. Oscar Wilde once said, “Who can calculate the orbit of his own soul?” and no doubt he was on to something.

I believe the falter of this philosophy stems from the utilitarian conception that the essence of human life is happiness. I believe this is an invalid assumption, and is the very reason why that the whole utilitarian approach does not fly. The goal of human life should not be to move toward happiness, but to move toward higher consciousness and greater perception: to understand the universe more fully, because it is what all things do. We all seek to move closer to the universal understanding of all things, and therefore should not think in terms of the majority, but of the universal. As humans, we have mistaken ‘progress’ of civilization for ‘evolution.’ Our goal in society, no matter how much we deny it, is to make things easier for ourselves, so we will not have to work. We have deviated from the nature of all things; to gain greater perception, and have replaced evolution with convenience and crutches of goods. We no longer are concerned with the greater good, and until we are, we will not stumble across the key to enlightenment.