According to the principle of utility morality is, at heart, about maximizing the happiness of all concerned. In his essay on Utilitarianism, Mill puts forth various objections to his theory and refutes them in a defence against the value of utilitarianism as a moral theory. One of the objections is that utilitarianism is too demanding, that it is too much to expect to act for the betterment of society’s interests at large. In short, Mill proposes his two-level approach in defending Utilitarianism. Do you think Mill’s argument is compelling? I’m finding it very difficult to chose sides, both provide valid arguments.
You don’t present his counterargument… and the question is whether you find it compelling. If you’re left feeling ambivalent, then it’s clearly not completely compelling, and he’s missed out on something. He hasn’t closed the deal. Why not?
The reality is both sides, thus it makes sense that you would be divided. I don’t know what Mill had to say, but I can defend both sides to any extreme necessary. The reason that can be done is that there is an underlying presumption that all people should behave the same way, morally speaking. And that is not the real universe. If all people behave under the same morality (other than the highest abstract morality), then great suffering and death will follow.
Those who can actually utilize their understanding, “should” do so in order to form a properly established moral code. But the vastly larger portion of the population can’t utilize their understanding, and thus must have a simpler means to harmonize with each other. That simpler means has been called “faith” [in what someone else has said to do].
So you have a small group of truly accurate thinkers to establish a morality that actually works, the utilitarians, (that’s the hard part) and then you have a vast majority of people who are given a means to question and find faith in what the more elite few proposed (that is the easy part).
Establishing a following is a trivial and ancient art. But establishing a perfected reason to follow isn’t something Man has ever done well. And Science doesn’t really help very much in that regard as much as hurt (by misleading).