Mill’s writing in “Utilitarianism” emphasizes logic and reason as modes of making moral judgements. As such, he principally utilizes logos throughout the essay, largely eschewing the emotional appeal of pathos. His use of logos is evident in his defense of utilitarian philosophy from its critics. Addressing those critics who suggest that utilitarianism is a “hedonistic” philosophy that champions bodily pleasure over other forms of “good” and therefore erode the distinction between human and animal, Mill writes:
When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light, since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. [...] The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast’s pleasures do not satisfy a human being’s conceptions of happiness.
Here, he first alludes to the Epicureans, an Ancient Greek school of philosophy that sets the foundation for later Utilitarian philosophy. Mill rebuts the argument that Epicureans make no distinctions between “high” and “low” forms of pleasure, arguing instead that humans take greater pleasure in good and noble deeds than in “animal” pleasures. He turns this accusation back upon his enemies, arguing that it is they who “represent human nature in a degrading light” by assuming that “pleasure” is, for most humans, synonymous with physical or sensual enjoyment. Mill draws out his argument here logically, using logos to highlight what he believes to be the unexamined assumptions and fallacies of his critics. Though he addresses his philosophical opponents directly here, his tone remains unemotional, choosing to make a logical counterargument rather than a personal attack.
