David Hume claimed that “all the sciences have a relation, greater or less, to human nature; and that however wide any of them may seem to run from it, they still return back by one passage or another.” (Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge (OxfordL Clarendon Press, 1888), p. xix.) Mill agreed with Hume, at least with regard to sciences dealing with humans and human behavior (Other sciences, such as astronomy, depend on human nature only to the extent that they are discoverable.). So, in order to understand economics, political science, morality, gender issues, etc., one has to understand human nature.
Furthermore, like Hume, Mill believed that the study of human nature is a science, albeit an inexact one. It is inexact because we have not discovered all of the factors that affect human actions and thoughts. We will probably never learn about all of these factors because some depend upon the experiences of individuals and the individuals’ unique qualities. This means that there will always be room for the illusion of freedom, even if we are affected by unknown factors. Even though we are not completely free from outside influences, by learning more about the general causes of human thought and action we can work towards improving human society and thereby increase the happiness of all.
In his work, The Subjection of Women (SW), Mill argues that the social inequalities of his time did not occur because of any inherent superiority of one class of persons over another in the present time. These inequalities exist simply because opportunities have not been offered to allow, for example, women as a group to be treated equally. He refers back to “primitive” societies and argues that they were ruled by “superior strength”. When the firs promise was made, the roots for the sentiments of duty, obligation, trust, fidelity, etc. were formed. Yet, even though these sentiments gained power over time, people were still dominated by the rules of superior force. People continued to fight with each other. The influence of power or force continued long after the oppressed had obtained a power enabling them to exact vengeance (consider the French Revolution). It is only recently (Mill’s life-time) that the use of unmitigated power simply for one’s own gain has become distasteful to the general populace. This distaste simply came from a change in social environment and experience.
Yet, assumptions of superior strength equalling superiority continue to occur. “Conquering races hold it to be Nature’s own dictate that the conquered should obey the conquerors, or as they euphoniusly paraphrase it, that the feebler and more unwarlike races should submit to the braver and manner.” (SW, p. 14) But, Mill argues that what we consider “natural” is only what is customary. “So it is true that unnatural generally means only uncustomary, and that everything which is usual appears natural.” (Ibid.) Mill argues that what we really need to do is attempt to overcoome the prejudices of our own experience in order to distinguish true human nature from custom and the effects of experience.
For the most part, Mill does not believe in a general human nature that overrides experience. Human nature is shaped by experience for Mill. But, in Utilitarianism, Mill argues that humans are born capable of enjoyinghigher, as well as lower, pleasures and a senseof dignity. Higher pleasuresare more desirable and valuable than lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are the mental pleasures, such as those derived from learning, love, satisfaction of a job well done, etc. They generally require a greater investment of time and effort. But, they are also longer lasting and often permanent. They contribute to the ability to enhance or experience other pleasures. And, they often contribute to the happiness of others as well as oneself. The lower pleasures, on the other had, provide momentary satisfaction. They generally do not promote long term advantages. In fact, many of the lower pleasure can lead to displeasure or pain the long run (for example, careless sex and drug and alcohol use). The lower pleasures are also mainly selfish in nature, rarely contributing to the happiness of others.
It is the ability to experience higher pleasures that is the source of human dignity. This is why Mill states that,
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party knows both sides.
(Utilitarianish, Chapter II).
Mill feels that those who voluntarily choose the lower pleasures over the higher pleasures suffer from some infirmity of character which causes them to choose the nearer good instead of looking at the larger picture. He states,
I believe that before they devote themselves exclusively to the one (lower pleasure), they have already become (sic) incapable of the other (higher pleasure). Capacity for the nobler feelings is inmost natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them are not favorable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise. Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes,
because they have not time or opportunity for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are either the only ones to which they have access, or the only ones which they are any longer capable (sic) of enjoying. (Ibid.)
What does Mill’s statement say about our own society?