John Stuart Mill was a philosopher who believed that the only justification for exercising power over an individual was to prevent harm to others, and that actions were right to the extent that they promoted overall human happiness. Throughout the novel, we see time and time again where Paul’s actions reflect this idea. In most instances, he does what benefits everyone, but in very few times he has done things that benefit some or only him. In light of Mill’s philosophy, we can evaluate the ethics and morality of Paul, a soldier in Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front.

Firstly, Mill believed that the only legitimate exercise of power over an individual is to prevent harm to others. Paul embodies this principle when he kills the French printer who is suffering and dying in agony. Although killing someone is typically viewed as morally wrong, in this particular case, Paul’s action can be justified since he is preventing harm to the French printer by ending his pain and suffering. Paul states that he would have rather used a gun instead of a dagger. “Comrade, I did not want to kill you. If you jumped in here again, I would not do it, if you would be sensible too.” (Page 223 Chapter 9 All Quiet on the Western Front)

  This indicates that he would have preferred a quicker and less painful death for the French printer. Thus, Paul’s decision to end the suffering of the French printer aligns with Mill’s principle of preventing harm to others.

Secondly, Mill believed that actions were right to the extent that they promoted overall human happiness. Paul’s actions throughout the novel reveal that he is committed to this principle. For instance, Paul is always helping his comrades, and he feels lost and scared without them. He understands that the war is not their own and that they are fighting another man’s war. However, he continues to fight for his country because he feels it is his duty. This sense of duty and commitment to his comrades is a manifestation of his belief that actions should promote overall human happiness. Moreover, when he returns home on leave, he feels out of place and uncomfortable, which demonstrates his commitment to the well-being of his comrades over his own individual happiness.

Another instance where Paul’s actions align with Mill’s principle is when he steals geese for his group and Kat. Although stealing is almost always seen as a morally wrong action, in this case, Paul is increasing the overall happiness of people by ensuring that his group has enough food to eat. This action can be seen as utilitarian because it promotes the happiness and well-being of the group as a whole. But, something that contradicts this is that he is stealing from the farmer/owner of the geese, and the person who owns them doesn’t get anything out of it.

Moreover, Mill believed that actions should be evaluated based on their consequences rather than ethical sentiments or individual rights. This is evident in Paul’s decision to lie to Kemmerich’s mother about the circumstances surrounding Kemmerich’s death. Lying is usually seens as bad, and morally wrong but, Paul lies to Kemmerich’s mother to prevent her from experiencing the pain of knowing how her son died. Paul says “ He died immediately. He felt absolutely nothing at all. His face was quite calm.” (Page 181 Chapter 7 All Quiet on the Western Front) . If his mom knew how much pain Kemmerich was in before dying, it would’ve been much worse, and wouldve made her very depressed. This action can be justified under Mill’s philosophy because it promotes overall human happiness by preventing harm to Kemmerich’s mother.

Finally, Mill believed that actions that promoted the overall well-being of individuals would also lead to happiness. Paul’s love for a French woman and his decision to help the Russian prisoners are both examples of his commitment to promoting overall human happiness. Paul’s decision to love a French woman, despite being a German soldier, shows his willingness to embrace happiness, even in a time of war. Additionally, his decision to help the Russian prisoners demonstrates his commitment to promoting overall human well-being, even to individuals who are considered to be enemies. Adding on, we see Paul give them potato cakes given to him by his dying mother. Paul’s actions are targeted to help everyone as he gives food to the starving prisoners, but keeps some so that he doesn’t disrespect his mother who made them in pain.

In conclusion, the actions of Paul, the soldier in All Quiet on the Western Front, can be evaluated in light of the philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Mill believed that actions should promote overall human happiness and that the consequences of actions should be the basis for evaluating their morality. Paul’s actions throughout the novel demonstrate his commitment to this principle, as he consistently acts to promote the well-being of his comrades and others, even when it requires him to act against his individual self-interest. Therefore, Paul can be seen as a utilitarian, and his actions can be justified under Mill’s philosophy of promoting overall happiness. However, it’s important to note that Mill also argues that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.” (Utilitarianism, Chapter 1)

This raises questions about the morality of Paul’s actions in the war. While his actions may have been in favor of others by helping his comrades and protecting them from harm, he was also participating in a war that caused immense harm to others, both physically and morally. According to Mill, this would not be a sufficient warrant for exercising power over others.

Adding on to this, Paul’s actions towards the French printer and the Russian prisoners also raise ethical questions. While his intention may have been to stop the suffering of the French printer, the act of killing him can still be seen as a violation of his rights. Additionally, while Paul’s act of giving potato cakes to the Russian prisoners can be seen as a kind gesture, stealing geese for his own group raises issues of theft and selfishness.

Overall, while Paul’s actions can be evaluated through the lens of Mill’s philosophy of utilitarianism, there are also ethical and moral considerations to be made in terms of harm to others, personal autonomy and liberty, and the violation of individual rights. The war itself, and the circumstances under which Paul and his comrades were forced to fight, also complicate any straightforward evaluation of their actions.In conclusion, John Stuart Mill’s philosophy can be used to evaluate the ethics of Paul in All Quiet on the Western Front. While Paul’s actions can be justified under the utilitarian principle of promoting overall happiness, there are also ethical and moral considerations to be made in terms of harm to others, personal autonomy and liberty, and the violation of individual rights. The war itself, and the circumstances under which Paul and his comrades were forced to fight, also complicate any straightforward evaluation of their actions. Ultimately, the evaluation of Paul’s ethics and morality requires multiple views and understandings of Mill’s philosophy and the complex realities of war.