John Stuart Mill Swine Analysis

John Stuart Mill called Jeremy Bentham’s idea of egoism the “philosophy of swine,” degrading it to something that only a lower species would ever consider partaking in. This original principle that Mill disagreed with was that of the pleasure principle, the evasion of pain and harm in favor of wanting pleasure. This coincides with the harm principle of the same regard; which advocates that anything that harms you or your personal goals is bad, whereas anything that does not harm you is good. Mill would subsequently alter this definition to be more concerned with the quality of said pleasure than just the pleasure itself, because so much of egoism is a situational affair that is difficult to rank on its own objective basis. The situational

For this scenario, let’s say that S1 = using money to buy a boat for yourself; S2 = using money to buy a boat to take your family on a cruise around the world; and S3 = using money to buy a boat to transport innocent refugees to the United States. S1 states that you bought a boat for yourself, but gives no additional or even parenthetical clarification on a reason for why. However, even if it had a subordinate clause that stated that it was your dream to have a boat since you were young, would that change anything? Does following one’s dream count as selfishness, simply because using money for your own personal desires is selfish in this scenario? Does this not equate to accomplishing the aspiration of becoming a famous singer, who also earns revenue that is used to buy material items of one’s interest? If we were to say, however, that he bought this boat for no other reason than to gloat to neighbors, then it would indeed be selfish and boastful without question. For the sake of avoiding these questions, I kept S1 blunt. This is to trigger discussion of whether buying a boat, without any other context, is selfish or selfless. S2 makes it a bit more complicated by giving an explicit reason, a reason that seems quite selfless. However, the prior context of this scenario states that using money for your own personal desires is inherently selfish. That negates all the wondrous memories built during the time of the cruise, all the incredible sights and marvels, and the general benevolence of your mindset in doing something incredibly kind for your family. Say, however, that you did not go on the cruise yourself and simply sent your family. This would then negate the selfishness, judging from the context of the question, because you are no longer part of the equation. Though, a retort could be that your desire is to send your family on the cruise. This still involves your desire as well