You are on page 1of 6

.

Get started

Bentham preached that an act is morally right if it produces the


greatest balance of pleasure (happiness) over pain (Khan, 2002,
online:
www.jeromekahn123.tripod.com/utilitarianismtheethicaltheoryofallti
mes/id4.html). He wrote a poem so as to make methods in decision
making easy to remember;

Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure

Such marks in pleasures and in pains endure

Such pleasures seek if private be they end

If it be public, wide let them extend

Such pains avoid, whatever be they view

If pains come, let them extend to few.

(Bentham cited in Shimomisse, 1999, online:


www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/ethics/lect_3.htm).

By this poem Bentham describes different factors that are important


in decision making. By intensity he means the intensity of the
pleasure or pain that an action may cause, by long; the duration
through which that pleasure or pain exceeds. In quoting certainty
he denotes the certainty or uncertainty experienced in the decision
making, by speedy; the convenience or inaccessibility of options
when the action is to be made. Fruitful indicates the tendency of
the action to create a chain reaction of other pleasures or pains. The
result of an action may release one from pain or may enforce
pleasure. A motivation for happiness may put one in pain, yet is
seen to be worthwhile. He also refers to the fact that a pain may be
worthwhile if it is to release one from other pains. Finally pure
signifies the number of persons affected by which degree of
pleasure or pain in result of the action. Putting oneself in the result
of a pain may be worthwhile if it is to do good for another; this may
be seen as a noble quality but is not necessarily expected of a
person.

Benthams philosophy was that each man ultimately wants to be


happy and so, in taking each of these factors into account, the result
should be aiming towards an effect of happiness and that pains
should be avoided (Bentham, 2002, p5). He justified the principle of
utility by saying that an action conforming to the principle of utility
is right or at least not wrong; it ought to be done, or at least it is not
the case that it ought not be done (Bentham cited in Mautner,
2002, online: www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm).

Bentham then devised a calculus, called the hedonistic equation, for


the immediate analysis of a situation. This calculus involved the
summing up of all the advantages of an outcome of an action on
one side versus the summing up of all the disadvantages of the
outcome on the other. The resultant decisive factor would be
whether the action causes more griefs or more delights (Bentham
cited in Beauchamp, 2001, p113). He stated that happiness should
be most wanted for the interests of those concerned and that this
could either be applied to the community in general or to an
individual (Bentham, 2000, p5). An important factor of Benthams
theory is that he did take into account the effect of an action on
other people. This point defined Benthams hypothesis from other
hedonist theories making him more involved in collective egoism
(Shimomisse, 1999, online:
www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/ethics/lect_3.htm).

As Bentham involved in the subject of law he, applied his theory to


the discipline. He stated that the responsibility of legislators was to
punish those who had committed a crime with a penalty which gave
more pain (or unpleasantry) than the crime had given him pleasure
(Shimomisse, 1999, online:
www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/ethics/lect_3.htm).

In the words of Mill, Benthams theory is a most brief and general


one (Mill, 1859, p8). Benthams theories on Utilitarianism are
advanced and developed ones of Benthams theories and in
numerous ways do not show much disparity.
Similar to Bentham, Mill uses words such as utility, happiness and
pleasure as synonyms; Desiring a thing and finding it pleasant
arein strictness of language, two different modes of naming the
same psychological fact (Mill cited in Milgram, 2000, p2). Mill
followed two basic principles, firstly that actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend
to promote the reverse of happiness and secondly to do as one
would be done by and love ones neighbour as oneself (Mill cited in
Beauchamp, 2001, p108). Mill shows more of an insight to religious
matters in this theory and considers that Bentham has a view that
mankinds only interests are in self-interestsympathies, or
occasionally antipathies. A point that Mill makes is that Bentham
does not identify with mans interests in spiritual perfection or self-
respect (Mill, 1859, p8). He felt that Benthams terminology for such
a variety of motivations was too singular and simple (Lachs, 2002,
online: www.utilitarianism.com/mill.htm). These remarks on
Benthams work distinguish Mill as more altruistic than Bentham was
egoistic or hedonistic and that, in terms of morals and
responsibilities, Mill was more apprehensive (Shimomisse, 1999,
online: www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/ethics/lect_3.htm). Either
way, Mill did still follow the Greatest Happiness Principle;

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 pleasures and the absence of pain, by
unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. All desirable things
(which are numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are
desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as
means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain

(Shimomisse, 1999, online:


www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/ethics/lect_3.htm).

Mill expanded on Benthams account of what happiness was by


accentuating moral and intellectual pleasures over those of mere
sensation and superiority of mental over bodily pleasures (Mill
cited in Beauchamp, 2001, p107). While Bentham had left the
expression of happiness open to interpretation, Mill felt that it is
better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied and
that if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they
only know their own side of the question (Mill cited in Beauchamp,
2001, p108). He also opposed the hedonistic equation as not all
pleasures or pains are preferred or resented equally (Mill cited in
Beauchamp, 2001, pp107-8). To state this more clearly I present a
simplified example; one may think of eating a bran muffin. As plus
points to eating the muffin 1) he is hungry and 2) he loves the taste
of bran muffins and on the minus side the only factor to not eating it
is that he has an allergy to bran that causes him to stop breathing.
In relation to Benthams hedonistic equation the fact that there are
two positive sides and only one negative would cause the man to
eat the muffin. Mill argues that the outcome of Benthams principle
is not logical and that a decided preference criterion is needed (Mill
cited in Milgram, 2000, p6).

Mills decided preference criterion composes of either making


decisions in terms of what choices one has learnt from before, or by
consulting the preferences of other people who have learnt from
past experience (Mill cited in Milgram, 2000, p6). Whether or not the
witnesses are wrong, Mill makes no comment. In judgment of Mills
decided preference criterion all personal taste is cancelled.

In considering which theory of the two is more convincing I shall


consider each of failures of the theories. While Benthams work is
very minimal it is left open to interpretation. Mill does expand on
Benthams work and yet I find that he goes to the next extreme and
that his extensions cause his theories to only apply to certain cases.

In looking at Benthams version of motivation being happiness, it is


true to say that nobody wants to be unhappy or discontented. It is
only reasonable to say that every person wants what they want and
when they get what they want they are happy. Considering that one
wants what they dont want it would only be due to the fact that it is
a means to eventually get what they want, for example one may not
want to run but will do it so that they may get fit. Human nature is
selfish, even in love people love others due to the fact that the other
person makes them feel like a better person. Even though Mill feels
that Bentham does not take spiritual perfection into account
Bentham still does not directly dismiss it. Self-respect again is a
selfish motive, one will act in a manner that makes him feel good
about himself and so it makes him happy.
Indeed Benthams hedonistic equation has the weakness that Mill
proposes, yet his attempt to correct it through the decided
preference criterion is again a weakness on Mills behalf. Just
because one person has an experience over the other does not
mean that the other will have the same preference. Indeed someone
elses preference may be taken into account but may surely not be
the only deciding factor.

Finally the presupposition that it is better to be a human being


dissatisfied than a pig satisfied and that if the fool, or the pig, is of
a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of
the question (Mill cited in Beauchamp, 2001, p108). This may be
the point where Mills biases get him into the most trouble. His
opinion is shown greatly here through his insult to those that may
feel differently. Indeed many people who are not fools would rather
not know certain data that they have the access to. This does not
make them a fool; it is merely their personal taste. As an example
take the political situation in Zimbabwe. Many problems of terrorism
occur repeatedly with hardly any hope or means of an end to the
situation, having each terrible occurrence known over and over
becomes a factor that can cause depression. One may want to leave
the country for their own safety yet many are not able to and so
have to live on under such circumstances. In such a case, for many
it is better to be a fool satisfied than to be the wise one who is
continuously well informed.

In conclusion Bentham does leave much unsaid, yet in such a


manner that leaves his theory one that may be applied to every
situation. His work is more applicable as a pose to Mill who simply
added to Benthams work as it just seemed too simple. Mills
decided preference criterion may definitely be taken into account
yet may not be applied in the manner that he suggests. Benthams
hedonistic equation may also be taken into account yet may not be
the deciding factor. While Mills work may work for some it may not
work for all, his instrumentalism does him no justice. Benthams
work is minimal, applicable and has no biases, by far the most
appropriate theory; an action conforming to the principle of utility is
right or at least not wrong; it ought to be done, or at least it is not
the case that it ought not be done (Bentham cited in Mautner,
2002, online: www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm).

You might also like