In John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism,” the ethical value of an action is determined by its contribution to the overall happiness, where happiness is intricately defined as pleasure and the absence of pain. Mill explicitly states, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, Pg 186). This foundation, known as the Greatest Happiness Principle, emphasizes not just any form of pleasure but prioritizes those of a higher nature—intellectual, moral, and aesthetic pleasures—over mere sensual gratifications. Mill argues for a qualitative distinction among pleasures, suggesting that “of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure” (Mill). Here, Mill introduces a hierarchical view of pleasures that places ethical actions within the realm of those contributing to the more noble aspects of human happiness. Consequently, an action’s ethical merit in Mill’s utilitarian framework hinges on its capacity to maximize these higher forms of pleasure across society, juxtaposing mere quantitative assessments of happiness with a nuanced consideration of its qualitative aspects.
Adam Smith, in “The Wealth of Nations,” characterizes capitalist economics through the concept of the invisible hand, illustrating how individual self-interest inadvertently promotes the welfare of society at large. Smith elucidates this idea by stating, “By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it” (Smith, Pg 456). This assertion underpins Smith’s view of capitalism as a system where individual pursuits of profit and self-benefit, without direct intention for communal good, lead to the optimal allocation of resources, efficiency, and overall societal prosperity. Smith’s perspective implies that the mechanisms of free markets and competition, driven by personal gain, naturally orchestrate economic activities in a manner that benefits society. This self-regulating feature of capitalist economics, according to Smith, obviates the need for heavy-handed governmental intervention in economic affairs. Smith’s depiction of capitalist economics celebrates the synergy between personal interests and the collective good, suggesting a harmonious balance where the pursuit of individual profit translates into widespread societal benefits.
From the perspective of John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism,” Smith’s portrayal of capitalist economics might be seen as aligning with the principle of promoting the greatest happiness, albeit with some critical nuances. While Smith advocates for the efficiency of self-interest in driving societal wealth, Mill’s utilitarian framework would scrutinize the depth and distribution of the happiness generated by such a system. Applying this to Smith’s model, a utilitarian analysis would likely commend the system’s potential to increase overall societal wealth and happiness through individual pursuits of self-interest. However, Mill would arguably probe deeper into whether the happiness derived from capitalist economics adheres to his qualitative distinction among pleasures, favoring those that engage higher faculties over mere sensual gratification. Moreover, Mill’s emphasis on the equitable distribution of happiness—ensuring that the benefits of capitalism do not disproportionately favor a select few at the expense of the broader society—would lead to a critical examination of Smith’s description. Thus, while Smith’s view of capitalist economics as a self-regulating system that enhances societal welfare aligns with utilitarian aims, Mill would likely question the depth, quality, and distribution of the happiness produced within such an economic framework.
Andre Gunder Frank offers a starkly different perspective on capitalist economics compared to Adam Smith, focusing on the structural exploitation inherent in the system. Frank argues that the capitalist development process has historically led to a pattern of underdevelopment in certain regions, essentially creating economic disparities between developed and underdeveloped countries. He asserts, “underdevelopment is not due to the survival of archaic institutions and the existence of capital shortage in regions that have remained isolated from the stream of world history. On the contrary, underdevelopment was and still is generated by the very same historical process which also generated economic development: the development of capitalism itself” (Frank, Pg.23). This viewpoint challenges the notion that capitalism inherently promotes societal welfare. Instead, Frank highlights the metropolis-satellite dynamic, where wealth is extracted from underdeveloped (satellite) regions to benefit developed (metropolis) areas, perpetuating a cycle of underdevelopment. Frank’s critique underscores the global inequalities produced and maintained by capitalist structures, suggesting that the system’s exploitative mechanisms hinder the overall happiness and well-being of underdeveloped societies. This depiction of capitalism paints a picture of economic development that is not universally beneficial but is characterized by its uneven distribution of gains, favoring developed countries at the expense of others.
Evaluating Andre Gunder Frank’s description of capitalist economics through the lens of John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism” reveals profound ethical concerns. Frank’s analysis, which centers on the exploitative structures of capitalism that perpetuate underdevelopment, starkly contrasts with Mill’s ethical principle that emphasizes the promotion of happiness for all. Applying Mill utilitarian principle to Frank’s critique, it becomes evident that the systemic inequalities and exploitation highlighted by Frank would be deemed ethically problematic under Mill’s framework. The unequal distribution of benefits within the capitalist system, as described by Frank, leads to significant segments of the global population experiencing not happiness but suffering—a clear violation of the utilitarian maxim. Furthermore, Mill’s assertion that “pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends” (Mill, Pg.186) is in direct conflict with a system that, according to Frank, inherently generates pain and deprivation for many, to the advantage of a few. Thus, from a utilitarian perspective, Frank’s depiction of capitalism raises critical ethical issues, specifically concerning the quality and distribution of happiness, which Mill’s philosophy insists must be considered in evaluating the morality of any system or action.
Reflecting on the optimistic portrayal of capitalist economics by Adam Smith and contrasting it with Andre Gunder Frank’s critical examination, all through the lens of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian principles, I’m drawn more to Frank’s perspective. Smith’s belief in the natural alignment of individual self-interest with societal welfare, while compelling, seems to miss crucial considerations of how happiness is distributed among individuals. In contrast, Frank’s emphasis on the exploitative nature of capitalism, which fosters underdevelopment and inequality, resonates with my understanding of Mill’s emphasis on promoting happiness and minimizing pain. Frank points out how the very processes that drive capitalist development also engender systemic injustices that lead to widespread dissatisfaction, aligning with the utilitarian call for equitable happiness distribution. While acknowledging the potential for prosperity that Smith highlights within capitalism, I find Frank’s critique to be ethically more significant. It illuminates the disparities entrenched in capitalist systems, persuasively advocating for a closer alignment with Mill’s insistence on maximizing happiness across society.
