Welcome to Francis Academic Press

Frontiers in Educational Research, 2019, 2(9); doi: 10.25236/FER.2019.020906.

Utilitarianism of Mill and Bentham: a comparative analysis


XinYuan Lu

Corresponding Author:
XinYuan Lu

Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom, WC1H 0AL, London


In the process of history, mankind has never stopped exploring happiness. The thinkers in different times are constantly approaching the truth of happiness in the dispute of opinions according to the theme of their own era, but they have never been truly opened. The mystery of happiness can only be surmised and guessed at its true appearance based on the unpredictable presentation it has showed to us. Ancient Greece pursues the happiness of morality; Christianity aspires to the happiness of the other side of the world; for modern society, people’s interpretation of happiness is more complicated. For example, Kant reasoned out the consistency of morality and happiness from the strict moral principle; Marx established the collective care of all human happiness based on the historical materialism; those people in Schopenhauer’s arguments were always in the view of negative happiness in pain and boredom; Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory promoted self-realization; and Rawls revealed that life always gives him more happiness than he expects (Shao 2013). These explanations and discourses showed the true meaning of happiness from different angles, but they did not give us a unified opinion about what happiness is. The purpose of this essay is to explore the fundamental principle of morality, ‘the greatest happiness principle,’ in the Mill’s utilitarian thought of happiness. Based on his theory of happiness, compare it with the concepts of morality and justice, analyze the differences in the utilitarian theories of Mill and Bentham.


Utilitarianism; Happiness and morality; Happiness and justice

Cite This Paper

XinYuan Lu. Utilitarianism of Mill and Bentham: a comparative analysis. Frontiers in Educational Research (2019) Vol. 2 Issue 9: 30-35. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2019.020906.


[1] Bentham J (2009). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation (Dover Philosophical Classics). Dover Publications Inc.
[2] Brink D (2013). Mill’s progressive principles, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[3] Brink D (2017). Mill on justice and rights. The Blackwell companion to John Stuart Mill, ed. C. Macleod and D. Miller.
[4] Gong Q (2003). On utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill. Studies in Ethics.
[5] Liu L R (2007). A study of Mill’s utilitarianism ethics thought. Chinese Northwest Normal University Press.
[6] Macleod C (2018). Chapter 3.7, Mill’s theoretical philosophy: self-supporting or self-undermining? John Stuart Mill. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition)
[7] Macleod C (2018). Chapter 4.2, Mill’s conception of happiness. John Stuart Mill. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition).
[8] Macleod, C (2018). Chapter 4.3, Morality. John Stuart Mill. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition).
[9] Mill J.S (1863). Utilitarianism (1 ed.). London: Parker, Son and Bourn, West Strand. Retrieved 6 June 2015.
[10] Shao S. (2013). Mill’s utilitarianism thoughts of happiness. Jilin University Press.
[11] Wu W.B (2016). Mill utilitarian thought of happiness. Guangxi Normal University Press.