Explain Bentham’s Utilitarianism: (30 Marks)

Additionally when taking a first glance at Bentham’s act utilitarianism, the teleological theory can mean that many miss interpret it to make assumptions telling us that in Bentham’s view that the use of humans in experiments and trails, can always be entirely justified as a result of the consequentialist basis of his theory. However when looking beneath the surface of his theory it reveals the complexity of the issue. The ethical issues involved in human experimentation will also play a role, influencing the results of the hedonic calculus.

Hedonism is the idea that well-being of people comes about through pleasure. Pure hedonism is the thought that it arises through and only through pleasure and both Bentham and Mill advocate different approaches for which hedonism may be the basis of human well-being. Both Philosophers then go on to construct theories of morality on the basis of this idea such that what should be maximised in a moral dilemma is the cumulative welfare of all individuals as measured by their particular approach for deciphering which course of action will yield the most well-being for all. However, the focus of

In essence, Jeremy Bentham believes that our moral behavior is governed by "two sovereign masters", that being pain and pleasure. Bentham argues that these "masters" preside over everything we do, everything we say, and in everything we think. As humans, Bentham argues, it is not our choice to decide to base our morality off of pain and pleasure, but instead we are dominated by these perceptions and are obliged to do so. He brings up the point of the principle of utility, which by definition is the judgment of a particular action in correlation with its effects on the happiness of everyone who is affected by the action. This utility isn't only excluded to self-pleasure, but more broadly, the "interest" of the whole community is calculated.

Jeremy Bentham associates utilitarianism with ancient hedonism, where actions are resulting in the pursuit of happiness. It was him who established “act” utilitarian; where the decisions deal with each individual case analyzing the benefits and harm to promote to overall happiness, which would yield the best consequences. Every action and every decision would be weighted for

Meanwhile, if we look in to our modern society, the ethical views from the past have changed because people these days have their own ability to define happiness through their own experiences of pleasure and pain. Consequently, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill erect the system of utilitarianism.

He thought that humans were ruled by the two “sovereign masters” of pleasure and pain. He introduces a method of calculating the value of pleasure and pain which is known as the ‘hedonic calculus’.

For bentham, pleasure and pain define one's good. Also, that there is no individual that is greater or higher than one another regardless of social relationship or class. These connections show no meaning and are not necessary

In this essay I will be arguing the flaws within Jeremy Bentham’s theory of Act Utilitarianism by solidifying my position, with evidence, in support of John Stuart Mill’s reformulation. Jeremy Bentham, an english philosopher, highly regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism, established the utilitarian doctrine. The main proposition of Bentham’s utilitarian doctrine states: The highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure and pain (Sandell, 34). Bentham believed that ”pleasure and pain” stood above all other moral considerations and endured the role as our “sovereign masters”. He justified actions as “good” if it led to an increase of pleasure, and “bad” if it led to an increase of pain.

Bentham’s principle of utility is stated in chapter one of “Principles of Morals and Legislation”, “By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, (all this in the present case comes to the same thing) or (what comes again to the same thing to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered” Which in short just means that the principle approves or disapproves of an action, based on whether or not happiness is augmented or diminished, and the interest of everyone(community) is considered. Bentham’s principle of utility is applied through what Bentham calls Felicity Calculus. Felicity Calculus is a set of seven questions that an individual should consider when evaluating the happiness an action will yield. The questions are: Intensity(How intense is the happiness?), Duration(How long will the happiness last?), Certainty(How sure is the individual that the action will make them happy?), Propinquity( How soon will the individual be happy?), Fecundity(Will the action produce even more pleasure?), Purity(How free from pain is the

Jeremy Bentham’s quantitative hedonism is a viewpoint that quantity, intensity, and duration of pleasures determines the value of that pleasure. Bentham argues that happiness is the ultimate good. He argues that the definition of happiness is pleasure accompanied by an avoidance of pain. Jeremy Bentham believed that creating the greatest combined happiness was the key to correct moral behavior.

“According to Jeremy Bentham’s ‘principle of utility,’ actions are right when they increase happiness and diminish misery.” (Bentham, pg. 101) With this, Bentham is described as a “hedonistic utilitarian,” meaning his theoretical objectives consist of the pursuit of happiness/pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Hedonists also believe in quantifying happiness. Bentham developed the formula of the “calculus of felicity”(hedonistic calculus) in order for one to “analyze an act in terms of the pleasure it will produce” when applied to utilitarian criteria. (Bentham, pg. 270) Bentham intended this grouping of circumstances to be applied when considering all acts. The seven categories defined by Bentham are: Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Proximity, Fecundity, Purity, and Extent. The benefit of using utilitarian criteria for determining the value of pleasure is that it presents several perspectives of pleasure. The primary advantage of “calculus of felicity” using utilitarian criteria is that the pleasure obtained from all different acts or sources is to be measured in the same way. Universal application of this measurement implies that there is no additional value to acts that are deemed more moral or intellectual.

Even more important is the point of Bentham's theory, according to which pleasure and suffering can be more or less accurately calculated. With this statement at the present time,anyone will hardly agree.

Historically, utilitarians have used the term utility rather than welfare and it has been defined variously as pleasure, happiness or preference satisfaction. It is the system of values taking that the maximizing of total happiness of all people is necessary. Happiness of people should be sacrificed only to bring greater happiness to other people. It Is a form of consequentialism because it

Jeremy Bentham was a brutish philosopher, jurist and social reformer viewed as the founder of modern utilitarianism. Born on 15th February 1748 London, England and died 6th June 1832 in the age of 84 London, England. Era related to Bentham was 18th century philosophy up to 19th century philosophy. The school where Jeremy Bentham studied was utilitarianism, legal positivism, liberalism. His main interests were political philosophy, philosophy of law, ethics and economics. Greatest happiness principle is one of the notable ideas of him.

According to the psychological theory, pain and pleasure determines how in fact we always do, they are the pure motives of all our actions. Realistically, only the pleasure and the avoidance of pain can be our ends. Example can be found when you observe toddlers learn what is right and wrong. Bentham also argued that we should never act on motive for desirable consequences, because the motive that yield a good consequence may at other time yield undesirable one. And so motive itself is insufficient to justify any action.