A clip from The Simpsons Emmy-award winning episode HOMR (Season 12, Episode 9) provides a vivid illustration—and critique of—the contrast between higher and lower pleasures drawn by John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism.
The character of Homer Simpson is portrayed throughout the series as an unintelligent buffoon. Earlier in this episode, Homer discovers that the cause of this is a crayon that accidentally became lodged in his brain when he stuck it up his nose as a child. The crayon is removed, and Homer suddenly becomes highly articulate and exceptionally intelligent, but also alienated from everyone around him and absolutely miserable. His brilliant daughter Lisa explains to him that this is normal, showing him a graph she has made according to which happiness goes down as intelligence goes up. In this clip, Homer decides to have the crayon replaced and return to blissful ignorance (but not before writing a letter to Lisa apologizing for his decision, telling her that the best part of being intelligent was being able to fully appreciate for the first time how great she is).
John Stuart Mill responds to criticisms that utilitarianism is a base or animalistic theory by drawing a distinction between higher and lower pleasures, arguing that pleasures can differ not just in quantity but also in quality, and that higher-quality pleasures are worth significantly than those of lower quality.
During a class session on Mill’s utilitarianism, I have students review the following passage in pairs, asking them to articulate what they think Mill’s main ideas are.
“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. … Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both do give most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures … It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”
After talking about what the passage means with each other and the class as a whole, we turn to discussion of whether students agree with Mill’s assessment that people who really know what they’re talking about always prefer the pleasure of poetry and philosophy to that of sex and candy.
Mill insists that those who prefer lower pleasures are simply uninformed; the fool is only happy because he cannot imagine what it is like to be Socrates.
But the HOMR episode is about a fool who has the experience of becoming like Socrates, and who knowingly chooses to become a fool again. This can be interpreted as a criticism of Mill’s view: is it really plausible that the pleasures of the intellect count for so much that they can offset sadness, alienation, or dissatisfaction?
I like to survey students—ideally in an anonymous way, either via a website like Poll Everywhere or Google Forms, or a show of hands in which students are asked to close their eyes so as not to feel self-conscious in front of their classmates—about who they think is right: John Stuart Mill, or Homer Simpson? We then discuss what their answers were, and why they chose that answer. Students can also be anonymously surveyed about whether their own opinions about higher and lower pleasures line up with Mill’s: would they decidedly prefer attending a Shakespeare play or eating excellent pizza? Would they prefer reading a classic literary novel or binging a show like Tiger King on Netflix? For each question, I also give options of neither (for students who wouldn’t enjoy either option), “I can’t decide,” and “I don’t understand the question well enough to answer it.”
In having this discussion, it can be helpful to think about the various ways in which Homer experiences pleasure in both his crayon-brained and crayon-less state. When intelligent, Homer connects with his daughter, performs his job as a nuclear power plant safety inspector well (so well, in fact, that the plant has to be temporarily shut down), and accidentally disproves the existence of God while doing his taxes (to the great distress of his religious neighbor Ned). But he also is unable to enjoy the lowest-common-denominator pop culture that he used to, and no longer takes any pleasure in what used to be his favorite activity of drinking the night away at the bar with his friends.
Students can consider questions about which activities bring pleasure to Homer and to the people around him, and which of Homer’s activities are actually good or valuable. Do these two categories ever come apart? For example, is Homer’s friendship with his drinking buddies or his relationship with Lisa morally significant, independently of whether it makes Homer, his friends, or Lisa happy? If so, what does this tell us about hedonism as a theory of the good, and about utilitarianism as an ethical theory?
Reading: Chapter 2 of John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism
Possible additional reading: The HOMR episode is inspired by the short story “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes, in which a mentally disabled man named Charlie receives an experimental treatment to greatly increase his intelligence and becomes alienated from the co-workers he once thought were his friends. He then begins to slowly lose his newly gained intelligence, which greatly pains him; he now sees his interactions with his co-workers in a different light, and is unable to return to his earlier, happy state. Because Charlie has a very different experience than Homer, the story could potentially be paired with it for a richer discussion, especially in a philosophy through fiction course.
The Teaching and Learning Video Series is designed to share pedagogical approaches to using humorous video clips for teaching philosophy. Humor, when used appropriately, has empirically been shown to correlate with higher retention rates. If you are interested in contributing to this series, please email the Series Editor, William A. B. Parkhurst, at parkhurw@gvsu.edu
Alida Liberman
Alida Liberman is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Southern Methodist University. Her research focuses on theoretical and practical ethics and the spaces in between, and she is a facilitator of Teaching and Learning workshops from the American Association of Philosophy Teachers.
