Evaluate the opinion that ‘there is more to Utilitarianism than just promoting happiness’.

The moral theory of Utilitarianism is based on one universal guiding principle that was initially founded by Jeremy Bentham in in his first substantial (though anonymous) publication, A Fragment on Government, where he introduced what he called a ‘fundamental axiom, it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.’. This seems to suggest that the opinion is incorrect because it places the basis of morality only in how much happiness is created by a certain act. Since this places the emphasis on the result of an act we can say that the theory is consequential; an act is morally justified on the basis of the consequence, whether it promotes happiness. Therefore we can conclude that the opinion is not correct on this because the Greater Happiness Principle of Bentham is the measure of morality, and all this is concerned with is how well an act is conducive to happiness. However, in Utilitarianism by J. S. Mill (considered as the successor of Bentham in expounding and developing the theory) the ‘principle of utility’ is introduced which holds ‘‘the creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.’ This adds the nuance that actions are wrong in how much they produce the reverse of happiness because Mill’s utilitarianism is eudaemonic and hedonistic; it defines happiness as pleasure and its reverse as pain. It could be argued that to say a state of affairs is free from pains is something different to saying it is pleasurable. If I am free of pain it doesn’t necessarily mean than I am receiving pleasure and so there is more than the promotion of pleasure, the reduction of pain. On the other hand, it could be asserted that a state free from any pain is in itself a state of pleasure because it is a pleasurable thing to not be in pain. However, imagine someone sat in a room alone with no stimulus whatsoever. The person is not being hurt mentally or physically, but by this, it also follows that they are not being pleasured in anyway. Therefore it seems difficult to say that it is the same thing to reduce pains than it is to increase pleasures, so there is more than just promoting happiness to Utilitarianism. However, a response to this could be that the person in the room is actually experiencing the pain of lack of stimulation, boredom, and that their happiness is ultimately not being fully promoted by being free from pain. On this it could be concluded that the opinion is still correct because that they are not happy is the assertion that they are unhappy. Overall, I would say that the statement is actually correct but is not sufficient enough an explanation of the promotion of happiness. The important nuance that happiness consists of the reduction of pleasures as well as the promotion of pain is necessary to make this statement correct.