Utilitarianism: The Philosophies Of Mill And Bentham

The pursuit of pleasure has also been condemned by critics as being little more than the promotion of one’s own interests, with no regard to the happiness of others. Mill disputes this as being narrow-minded, clarifying that the pleasure principle which forms the foundation for utilitarianism, “what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 16). With this acknowledgment, however, comes the criticism that people cannot possibly be motivated by something as satisfying the collective good of society. Mill countered this by pointing out, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others” (Mill 16). To the objection that pleasure is an acceptable end is contrary to Christian principles because it is “godless,” Mill states, “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other” (Mill 21).

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are known for their theories about utilitarianism. Both of them agree that the ethical right thing to do would be to maximize utility in any given situation. Yet, both of them disagree when it came to defninig pleasure. Bentham’s theory generalizes pleasure as just the same type of emotion felt by anyone and in any situation. Mill’s theory on the other hand stated that there are two different types of pleasure: the higher intellectual pleasure and the lower physical pleasure

Bentham argues that humans only commit actions on the bases of utility, which is the desire to enjoy happiness and prevent pain. He is certain that utility alone governs human morality and that the principles of utilitarianism are morally correct for every situation. Bentham claims that the purpose of morality is to increase the happiness of society and every action should aim to benefit the greatest number. He argues that without attaining happiness for the greatest number, society becomes dysfunction. In Bentham’s perfect utilitarian society, individuals would put aside their personal desires which cause pain to society as a whole in order to promote universal happiness. Bentham, strongly suggests that utilitarianism has no uncertainties, period. After objective analysis under Utilitarianism, before committing any action an individual must first examine the happiness which can be extracted from the action and the potential harms that it can cause, if the action yields more pain to the greatest number it is immoral. Bentham concludes that pain can’t yield happiness and that for an action to be morally correct it must

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

For utilitarian philosophers, happiness is the supreme value of life. John Stuart Mill defines Utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasure” (Mill, Utilitarianism). This meaning that utilitarianism is determined by the calculation of happiness, in which actions are deemed to be good if they tend to produce pleasure, a form of happiness. On the contrary, they are evil if they tend to promote pain. Not only does Mill regard to the end product of happiness in actions, but also considers the motives of such actions. In his argument, Mill defends the idea that happiness as the underlying basis of morality, and that people desire nothing but happiness.

How do we apply aged philosophies to present day problems? Like his forefather John Stuart Mill, modern thinker Peter Singer approaches moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree that selflessness can end human suffering. In addition, their views concerning the significance of consequences align; however, they conflict on the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism by accurately recognizing the discrepancy between absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also by considering the intricate concept of motive.

The belief that which is good is determined by what brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people laid the foundation for the principals of Mill’s utilitarianism. Within this calculation, he distinguishes between a higher and lower principle of the value of pleasure. However, this assertion that specific pleasures are more desirable than others adds a complexity to a theory that seems otherwise simplistic. In his belief of separate pleasures, the complication of what is desired versus what is desirable arises. Theses higher pleasures become arbitrary when they are defined desirable only once they have become desired pleasures. Mill counters with the idea that the literal action that produces the higher pleasures is

One of the attacks on Utilitarianism is that it is impossible to obtain happiness, Mill agrees but only if you are arguing that a life of happiness is one of continuously high pleasure. Mill realistically says that happiness often only lasts for moments - with a few exceptions. Utilitarianism is focused on obtaining a life with few pains in-between many moments of various pleasure - a happy life, not an unobtainable perfect life.

In my opinion, there is so much that one can say about this topic, but the one thing that comes to mind and is the most recent for me is the election and not so recent European colonization. Since the day the Europeans stepped off the boat and began the colonization of America, God, egoism, and relativism has been a part of it. Upon Europe’s arrival to America they quickly began to force or for a better word “teach” the Native Americans and African (slaves) about God in their eyes. They did this without caring or thinking about that they already prayed to a God they believed in before their arrival. They wanted or did teach that the higher power was their “God” and they felt that they had to teach this to them to save them. The European’s

Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.

Mill also states that an existence with the possibility of happiness must be “…to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation (234)”. Utilitarianism not only focuses on the attainment of happiness, but the prevention of pain and unhappiness. (230)

Secondly, it is challenged that utilitarianism demand us to measure and calculate all of our actions which were gained by past experience and practices for Mill to reach greatest happiness principle. Although Mill defends like “There has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species. During all that time, mankind have been learning by experience and tendencies of actions…” (p. 113) to make a decision and advices following past experiences to practice an action to maximizing overall happiness criteria, however,

This work has probably received more analysis than any other work on utilitarianism available. However, I seek to do here what many others have been unable to accomplish so far. I hope to, in five paragraphs, cover each of the chapters of Utilitarianism in enough depth to allow any reader to decide whether or not they subscribe to Mill's doctrine, and if so, which part or parts they subscribe to. I do this with the realization that much of Mill's deliberation in the text will be completely gone. I suggest that anyone who seeks to fully understand Mill's work should read it at length.

Bentham’s concern was upon utilitarianism which assumes the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers. He believes that individuals weigh the probabilities of present and future pleasures against those of present and future pain (Postema, 1998).

Though the terms act and rule utility came after the time of Bentham and Mill, it can still be noted that Bentham was clearly an act utilitarian and the Mill was a rule utilitarian. This paper will cover two subjects of discussion related to utility, Bentham, and Mill. The first is a consideration of the way in which Bentham goes about reconciling the ethical hedonist he promotes with the psychological egoistic hedonism he endorses. The second is really three smaller issues: the way Bentham and Mill would direct us to apply the principle of utility, how this is comparable to the employment of the hedonistic calculus, and the possibility that the differences in their views may make us come to different moral decisions.