Utilitarianism in the Works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill - Essay Example

UTIL It is true that Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill both argue that the fundamental principle of morality is the principle of utility. Both also equate happiness as being an absolute and quantifiable ideal. There are arguments in favor of utilitarianism, because it proposes the most good for the most number of people. There are also counter-arguments, because many have critiqued utilitarian quantification, including Dickens. It is not the basic assumption of the current report that utilitarianism is a moral theory, and it is an ethical theory that stresses the limits of ethics by appearing as science. There are drawbacks to seeing things from Mill’s perspective, first of all because Mill lived in a society which was much different and much less global than today’s society. Secondly, there are problems in equating society at the beginning of the industrial revolution, in terms of quality and safety of the workplace. So, many of the early uses of the philosophy have been supplanted by new uses, in which authors like Bentham expand definitions of utility, in two basically positivist representations of utilitarianism by these authors. Mill was famous with a philosophy called utilitarianism. “An apology is due to the philosophical opponents of utilitarianism, for even the momentary appearance of confounding them with any one capable of so absurd a misconception; which is the more extraordinary, inasmuch as the contrary accusation, of referring everything to pleasure” (Mill, 2010). The author doesn’t go into a lot of detail about this philosophy or the fact that it is rather out of date today, since it enjoyed its most prominence in the Victorian era. However people still do talk about utilitarianism today, and Mill uses a basically utilitarian argument of logic to state that no one should be more or less important than anyone else, in terms of sentient beings. Compared to Bentham, Mill is the earlier writer, and therefore he supplies more of a framework of utilitarianism. He sets out to define the theory as well as defend it, and the document is very insistent that this philosophy should not be conflated with simple hedonism. Rather, it is more of an early attempt at a social capital theory, with generalized terms that would represent the equation of happiness in society. What Mill and Bentham both see utilitarianism as is a moral theory, and this is correct, and therefore the author uses the moral theory to back up their own moral philosophy. “Jeremy Bentham incorporated the essential basis of moral equality into his utilitarian system of ethics in the formula Each to count for one and non for more than one. In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being” (Singer, 1989). In utilitarianism, deliberation can be conflated with intention and determination, whereas justification can be thought of as proven reasonability. There are differences between different categories of the philosophy in general, which are basically involved with the application of theoretical concepts in terms of predicting and justifying consequences and comparisons between Mill and Bentham, who was writing more about utility than espousing a school of thought. “By the principle*7 of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question” (Bentham, 2010). These authors differ in interpretation, but the overall goal of both of their philosophies are similar, in terms of establishing an understanding of society, change, and the process of growth and renewal of philosophy throughout history. In terms of conflation with utilitarianism, the concept of the authors Bentham and Mills about equality of society can be used as a theory of justification in terms of its offering proofs of reasonable standards being upheld in the transition of theory to reality, and can also be used as a theory of deliberation in terms of its accuracy as a predictive matter of intention. “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering of any other being” (Singer, 1989). There are various elements to this philosophy which reflect well on the intentions for society, but as Singer’s article shows, Mill and Bentham’s original ideas can be used to defend any kind of argument in the present, because they are very theoretical. They do not have a lot of solid connections to supporting survey data. Any alternative to Mill and Bentham’s philosophy needs be has to take on the facets of utilitarianism that are in their text, and also has to propose something that works in a similar way. To me, I think a good alternative to this philosophy would be to realize that human beings have something special that separates us from animals, which is our creative intelligence and our use of language, or some combination of insights and abstract thoughts, which in fact makes humans and animals not necessarily equal at all. I think that some of the unbalanced framing currently employed by Singer represents the abuse of information. Authors who have an axe to grind like this, can be impacted ethically in terms of individual as well as collective ethics so that they know about framing and associated issues. Although utilitarianism has been very influential, as mentioned above, it can be seen as a rather cold and uncaring philosophy that does not hold for individual case, instead proposing a sort of standardized view of happiness. And of course, there is the idea of culture, and the fact that Bentham and Mill were not writing in a time period where they were taught to be culturally sensitive to ideas of functional society outside of Europe. I would also propose that utilitarian theory should perhaps think about using the term ethics more, instead of morality. Morality has a religious connotation and is highly individualized, whereas ethics represents more of a sort of universal sentiment that I think people may find more convincing. A lot of people don’t like to be preached at on moral grounds, but they give more thought to ethics because there is something more rational and logical about it. Ethics is not the same as morality or presupposing moral censorship, as some would have it; morality is more of an externalized and often religious response, whereas ethics could perhaps be more readily likened to the basic conscience mechanism of social responsibility. Ethics as an alternative to utilitarianism’s moral superiority is something that begins with the individual and acts effectively to represent society in terms of fair and balanced information being presented. It becomes clear when looking at the ethical issues that the setting of the society is not really balanced in this way. The author, whether Mill or Bentham, needs to find an alterative that recognizes that people must also function in this societal space as a greater microcosm than the individual, but a lesser one than the society. Therefore, the rules and codes of the society must be reflected in terms of providing fair and balanced, if physically framed, representations of an argument that could be ethical. Mill and Bentham use utilitarianism as a theory of justification of society and equality, but I would also propose that the authors look a little further into utilitarianism and see that it is really more about proven reasonability as a standard measuring the worth of the end result or consequential result of the concept: happiness, not equality. Utilitarianism has had a profound impact on many areas of society, including politics and education, since its inception as a justification theory. In terms of institutional application in a historical sense, this has also included a reckoning of the main points of justification theory utilitarianism as a way of grading or categorizing institutions or policy ramifications in terms of testing and proving the efficiency or utility of the institution through a utilitarian viewpoint. This involves justification in that it uses proof and rationalization rather than deliberation theories of intention and determination. This also increases the value of objectivity as a vaunted standard within utilitarianism, seen from this justification perspective. “The principle of utility*6 recognizes this subjection, and assumes it for the foundation of that system, the object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity by the hands of reason and of law. Systems which attempt to question it, deal in sounds instead of sense, in caprice instead of reason, in darkness instead of light” (Bentham, 2010) Utilitarianism thus has a political and legal value, even in the justification theory perspective, because it can separate levels of harm caused to society in terms of either rules that encompass actions or actions which in themselves become rules. It is difficult to say which interpretation is more faithful to the basic tenets of utilitarianism, but it seems that in terms of alternatives, Mill and Bentham could have chosen to look deeper into this philosophy than just “one counts as one.” What can be said, however, is that, justification-theory utilitarianism as stressed by the authors consists of a doctrine that relates to moral goodness rather than ethical goodness, and also a doctrine that relates to what the authors believe is morally right. There needs to be an alternative to this philosophy because it is untenable and seeks a level of sophistication which the author frequently is unable to convey appropriately, as seen by his use in the following sentence of made-up words within their rhetoric. “The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny (sic). The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor” (Singer, 1989). Singer’s essay, which proposes to have a utilitarian argument structure, is basically all about morality, and it corresponds to the rightness or wrongness of an action that impacts that action’s significance in terms of utility. This concept of utility has been stretched and formed the main basis for those who would criticize utilitarianism as a dry and humorless statistical impossibility that drained the imagination out of humanity and based impulse on quasi-scientific moral propositions. This is a valid criticism in the light of various authors’ use of utilitarianism, but it is also important to keep in mind that utilitarianism is basically a positive principle that lays out a plan for happiness, not equality. In other words, there are bright and dark sides to this issue, in which the philosophy can be changed and develop a more hybrid definition as it is interpreted by different scholars, such as Mill and Bentham. In these cases, one scholar usually comes before the other. REFERENCE Bentham, J. The principle of utility Mill, J (2010). Utilitarianism. Singer, P (2010). http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm Read More