In the ethical debate, a divide has long existed between two models. One school of thought, notably Immanuel Kant’s Deontology, emphasizes the importance moral motivation, the other, represented by Consequentialism, emphasizes the importance of the outcome. Consequentialism is distinguished from the deontological model as it holds that the ultimate rightness or wrongness of one’s conduct is found in the consequences, or effects, of one’s acts.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism that recognizes happiness as the ultimate end of all individual and communal acts. Happiness for the Utilitarian is the maximization of pleasure and the absence of pain; it is fundamental to our nature to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Taking this aspect into consideration, Utilitarianism proposes that the moral ‘ought’ should be intended to maximize happiness from the greatest number.
Jeremy Bentham, one of Utilitarianism’s most famous advocates, defines the principle of utility, or the greatest happiness principle, as one which …approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness. (Bentham, 65) To live in accordance to the greatest happiness principle, Bentham has outlined the sources of our pleasures and pains, ranked them, and provided a process by which to calculate the total pleasure or pain of any given action.
The Essay on Greater happiness for a greater number
1. Major strengths and weaknesses of this goal. a. Major Strengths – I think that the definition of happiness presented in the lecture is simple and elegant. In addition, I think that the very attempt to address the issue of happiness is necessary and should really form the basis of psychology. b. Major Weaknesses – While I agree that psychology should have happiness as the optimal ...
According to Bentham all of our pleasures and pains comes from four sanctions, or sources: the physical, the political, the moral, and the religious, which cover all pleasures and pains that issue from the “ordinary course of nature,” the governing body of a community, the individual or other community members, and a supernatural higher power, respectively. The physical, political, and the moral sanctions are all grounded in the present, whereas the religious sanction could also occur in the after-life.
Any given pleasure or pain can derive from any one of these sources. Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus is a quantitative measure, by which one can calculate and weigh pleasures and pains of all individuals affected by a given action, and assess which choice made would maximize happiness for the greatest number. Bentham proposes seven characteristics that can be used to evaluate and rank pleasures and pains: intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent.
Giving a pleasure or pain a value in accordance with these characteristics is necessary for calculating the positive or negative consequences of one’s actions. Bentham divides pleasures and pains into the simple and the complex. Simple pleasures and pains are not necessarily base, they are simple because they are concerned with one very specific element. Simple pleasures therefore range from the pleasure of smelling to that of memory. Simple pains range from the pain of excessive cold to that of awkwardness.
The complex pleasures and pains are not fundamentally on a different level, but rather they are amalgams of multiple simple pleasures and pains. This quantitative approach has been criticized for being reductive both for defining human life as the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain, and for reducing these pleasures and pains to a base, almost animalistic, level. In his essay on Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill addresses some of these criticisms. Although Mill accepts Bentham’s model, he gives more importance to the qualitative aspects of pleasures and pains than to the quantitative.
Mill distances himself from the bodily, Epicurean nature of Bentham’s pleasures and pains and makes a distinction between superior and inferior pleasure. Mill argues that human pleasures are superior to animalistic ones because as humans we are capable of cultivating higher pleasure and are always drawn to do so: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (Mill,10).
The Essay on Pleasures Human Mill Happiness Pleasure
Along with other noted philosophers, John Stuart Mill developed the nineteenth century philosophy known as Utilitarianism - the contention that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Bentham, in particular, is acknowledged as the philosophy's founder, it was Mill who justified the axiom through reason. He maintained that ...
This Platonic notion indicates that if our education and environment allow (which Mill notes in his social critique is not always the case), we will demand more than a pig in slop. Bentham argues that the legal system is built on the principle of utility: “the general object which all laws have, or ought it have, in common, is to augment the total happiness of the community” (Bentham, 97).
Bentham focuses his discussion of justice on punishment, which he sees as fundamentally evil and only justifiable when used to prevent greater evil. He names four circumstances in which punishment should not be utilized: where it is groundless, inefficacious, unprofitable, or needless.
Bentham then outlines rules to use in determining whether or not a punishment useful to the greater good and appropriate in severity, as he saw a tendency in society to over punish due antipathy and desire for retribution. Bentham believed that each act should be judged as just or unjust by a consideration of the circumstances, potential consequences, and persons involved rather than by a universal code. This is consistent with ‘Act Utilitarianism,’ which posits that each act should be judged in regard the specific, local consequences.
Rule Utilitarianism, which Mill embraces, attempts to universalize moral rules through the principle of utility. It suggests that we should not overanalyze the consequences of each single act; pragmatically, we need to form and follow legal and political rules that would maximize happiness for the greatest number. Mill bases his discussion of justice on both legal and moral rights, which he sees as universal; everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Therefore, justice should only involve perfect obligations, those that only require individuals to behave in a way that does not infringe on their rights. As security of these rights is fundamental to society, punishment is necessary to enforce them. Within this moral framework, rules (laws) that transcend time and space can be made to govern right and wrong and consistently maximize overall happiness. Given Mill and Bentham’s views on justice, it follows that both stress the necessity of impartiality, and avoiding both sympathy and antipathy, in one’s decision-making process.
The Essay on Utilitarianism and Greatest Net Happiness
... They call this the greatest happiness principle. Wherein, the sole criterion for an action is the actions consequence. Rule and Act Utilitarianism are separated in ... to the number of sentient beings affected by the action. Bentham had a profound influence on John Stuart Mill. Benthom ... never really set out to do in the first place. Bentham’s contributions were enormous and Mill said that they should ...
William Godwin’s fire case highlights the inherent difficulties in making decisions without considering personal ties. Godwin presents a situation in which one must choose between saving the Archbishop Fenelon or one’s own father from a burning building. Godwin acknowledges the strength of our personal feelings, but ultimately insists that these feelings should be disregarded when considering the greatest utility of an action: What magic is there in the pronoun “my,” that should justify us in overturning the decisions of impartial truth?
My brother or father may be a fool or a profligate, malicious, lying or dishonest. If they be, of what consequence is it that they are mine? (Godwin) This position is challenged by Bernard Williams, who sees it as cold and detrimental to personal integrity. Williams gives us the cases of George and Jim, who faced the option of taking an action that would maximize happiness for the greatest number but which would go against their personal morality and integrity.
If George and Jim refuse to act in accordance to the greatest happiness principle on the grounds of their personal beliefs, the pains that would result from their inaction would be, according to Utilitarianism, their fault; they would be negatively responsible. Williams points out the flaw in this thinking, as neither George nor Jim created the situation which brought about the suffering, to hold them responsible for the consequences is to let the person that did somewhat off the hook and reduce George and Jim to pawn in someone else’s game.
Williams therefore concludes that living as a strict Utilitarian would result not only in a loss of personal integrity but also in a loss of morality. A greater challenge to Utilitarianism is that consequentialists can never be sure of the consequences; few actions are sure to bring about an exact result. Therefore to act in accordance with predicted consequences is to act on the shaky ground of hypothesis and assumption.
The Essay on William Shakespeare’s Macbeth Lady Macbeth Rediscovered
“We must always think about things, and we must think about things as they are, and not as they are said to be” (George Bernard Shaw). These words define how people tend to only view things from the outside, without looking deeper. They do not look past the stereotypes to see things for what they really are. Such is the case of Lady Macbeth in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. The ...
Although there are many critiques of Utilitarianism ranging from the uncertainty of future consequences to the loss of integrity and humanity, Utilitarianism is the foundation of Democracy. Most of the individuals that we hold up as champions and leaders have maximized happiness for the greatest number even if it came at a personal cost. Utilitarianism may be flawed but in an imperfect world it seems rational, logical, and ultimately moral to alleviate human suffering and work towards bringing happiness to the greatest number.
————————————————- Work Cited Bentham, Jeremy. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham: Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Penguin Classics. Print. Godwin, William. Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. Web. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism and The 1868 Speech on Capital Punishment. Ed. George Sher. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001. Print. Williams, Bernard. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press, 1973. Print.
