Philosophy 101 higher and lower pleasure forms

Question

J. S. Mill claims that what makes our action right or wrong is the amount of pleasure and pain our action brings about. If we do what generates the most pleasure sum-total we do what is right. Assuming we accept that all that matters for our happiness is the amount of pleasure we have, why does Mill state that unsatisfied Socrates (in terms of pleasures) is still better off than a satisfied fool?

Answer 1

Mill argues that Socrates unsatisfied is better off than a pig satisfied because Socrates is capable of experiencing the higher pleasures, whereas the swine is not. A higher pleasure is one that a competent judge, having experienced both, would choose every time. So even if Socrates is at that time unsatisfied, the fact that he is capable of experiencing the higher pleasures makes the difference. Because they are higher and, Mill argues, more pleasurable in an important sense, he's better off for being able to experience them, while the pig, even if it's very happy in some mud at the moment, has no chance of experiencing those higher pleasures.

It's a... weird (and not very successful, imo) argument, but Mill uses it to defend the value of art, philosophy, etc. over drugs, sex, and rock & roll, and thus to argue that his form of Hedonism doesn't only rest on the baser pleasures and aspects of our natures.

Hope that helps!