In the article “Mill on the Utility of Red Meat”, John Stuart Mill claims the idea of moral sanctions over legal, Food and Drug Administration approved, sanctions on regulating the food industry, specifically regarding red meat, will result in the greatest possible happiness for all the parties involved in the process of producing red meat. He backs his assertion through several supporting facts, which when looked at holistically, can appear to bring about a collective happiness. But therein lies the problem, the existence of collective happiness does not ensure happiness for the individual. Collective happiness exists when the greatest number of people have achieved greatest happiness. Despite the large number of people in United States who eat red meat on a daily basis, Mill believes that these moral sanctions can result in conformity to the no longer binding Paris agreement, positive health trends, and the preservation of natural lands. However, to sacrifice a daily habit, let alone in eating, a habit that one has no choice but to partake in, must require the individual to make a significant change in one’s meal schedule, and this is without taking into consideration of the interest to do so and emotional attachment to eating red meat. To do so would imply a certain level of altruism, fueled either by the interest of appearing to be good or the fear of appearing to be evil. It is possible to achieve the benefits of morally sanctioning red meat without sacrificing one’s interests. Though it may not be as easy, these moral sanctions are not the only way to reduce carbon emissions, carcinogenic intake, and industrialization of natural lands.
Mill seems to believe that these goals from the moral sanction are shared among the greatest number of people. The mere assumption that his interests in the benefits mentioned above are the goals of the masses is, if anything, presumptuous and conflicts intrinsically with the collective happiness of the nation. If by consuming red meat, most Americans are achieving the greatest happiness, then why would imposing moral sanctions lead us to an even greater happiness? The evidence is clear in that many Americans do like their red meat, Mill even references the existing success and the soon-to-come success of American meat manufacturers with Trump’s pledge to preserve red meat in America. Mill seems to confuse the heath of the environment and the people in it with happiness although many people knowingly engage in activities that are detrimental to the environment and their bodies to bring them a sense of joy. Mill’s argument hinges solely on the basis that Americans share his same interests and by making that assumption, he cannot definitively prove that the greatest happiness can be brought about with moral sanctions. To do so, would present a double standard in that meat manufactures are not able to assume what American’s greatest happiness is while Mill could.
In the most optimal sense, if everyone were to be happy, then a total collective happiness would be achieved. Therefore, if every single person were to choose whether or not they want to abstain from red meat to either share Mill’s values or indulge in a tasty meal and that would result in their happiness, then by definition collective happiness would be achieved. To be truly “selfish”, to be concerned with one’s own interests, can actually result in a collective happiness. To assume that one’s interests are representative of the collective whole is wrong and is often lumped together with the misconstrued definition of selfishness, which is to act with no regard for any living being and only for oneself.