How Mill’s utilitarian perspective might be applied to the issue of embryo research

When applying Mill’s theory you must always put his concept of ‘higher pleasures’ at the heart of your explanation. His ideas about freedom and harm flow directly from this. From Mill’s perspective, embryo research will normally be defended in order to bring benefits to the lives of those already alive through IVF technology or improvement in treatment of diseases such as diabetes and cancer.

Free speech and freedom of action as important conditions for the attainment of higher pleasures In On Liberty 1859 Mill argued that the higher intellectual pleasures were only possible if people were free to discuss, exchange and debate ideas and to try them out. Mill would have approved of a good debate about the merits of embryo research and would have encouraged experimentation that did not harm others.

Mill saw society as progressive and believed that the freedom of speech and action was necessary for this (particularly for legislators). He believed that it improved the distinctive human faculties of discrimination and judgement. By exercising the human faculties, learning from the results and observing the actions of others and acting on the results, individuals develop and contribute to the progress of society. So freedom to conduct research is important because in itself it contributes to the greater good.

The link between freedom, progress and higher pleasures Freedom of action contributes to the general progress of humanity This progress is good in itself because of; ‘the permanent interests of man as a progressive being’. The higher pleasures are made possible by this progress.

Free speech Mill argued that free speech was particularly important for progress and would therefore have encouraged as full a discussion of the ethics of embryology as possible before research began. The debate itself would have counted as a ‘higher pleasure’ and it would have helped to clarify any important moral issues for the following reasons:

Infallibility People and groups may believe their views on such things as the ‘Sanctity of Life’ to be absolutely right, but it is dangerous to assume this because many such assumptions have been proved wrong in the past. Mill argued that religious views about the ‘sanctity of life’ should be scrutinised for the same reason.

Dead Dogma Mill argues that opinions accepted only because of endorsement by authority are no more than prejudices. Arguments are not valid unless supported by reason. If all views are subjected to scrutiny without prejudice then they will need to find arguments in their defence. The strongest arguments will be rehearsed, developed and become stronger.

Partly True Mill argues that common opinions are rarely wholly true and that many, which are largely false contain some truth. Only by hearing these arguments and refuting them may the true part of them be understood. The Partly True argument is one of Mill’s strongest. By discussing opinions and considering their merits, one approaches the truth. Equally, by discussing largely false opinions, one becomes aware of the part that is true.

We can see that from Mill’s utilitarian perspective a debate about the ethics of embryology would have eliminated dead dogma and prejudice from the argument and clarified the good points about the arguments for and against. This in itself would have been good as it would have been a ‘higher pleasure’. Further it would have clarified any issues of ‘harm’ caused by embryology. If the research was considered harmful it would not be allowed.

From Mill’s perspective there would have been no ethical issue about the rights or interests of embryos because they are not capable of being harmed in a relevant sense. They cannot feel pleasure or pain and their fate would not affect the happiness of others. He would have been concerned about the medical benefits of the research to the extent that it would have affected higher and lower pleasures.

Why Mill might have been concerned: Embryo research might be used for practices harmful to humanity such as cloning and ‘designer babies’. It is difficult to predict how useful research would be, but this would be dealt with in the freedom and progress dimensions of his theory.