The Reformulation Benthams Theory of Utilitarianism - Essay Example

DRAFT COPY How does Mill reformulate Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism? Does he offer a better version of Utilitarianism? Why or why not? Does Mill surmount some of the common objections raised against Utilitarianism? Using Saving Private Ryan, Runaway Jury or Extreme Measures, explore how Utilitarianism can operate. Do you tend to agree or disagree with Utilitarianism? Defend your response. Utilitarianism Mill and Bentham Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are the two historical figures most closely associated with the philosophy of Utilitarianism, which seeks to ground moral reasoning in a calculation of utility by judging actions on the basis of the degree of goodness, happiness, and pleasure that they produce socially or personally through situational results. As Bentham wrote in Chapter 1 of ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,’ "By the principle 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: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness." (Bentham, 1823) Utilitarianism addresses the philosophical problem that occurs in the definition of “the good” in a pluralistic society where many people may differ on defining exactly what constitutes objective standards in moral reasoning. Utilitarianism is important in its relationship to the development of empirical standards in science to replace theological justifications of right and wrong in society, as well as in the growth of democracy, which required a solution to moral issues related to the disagreement among groups with different standards of belief. Utilitarianism is often summarized as “the greatest good for the greatest number” being used to calculate the moral correctness of an action, decision, or policy for both individuals and society on a common standard. According to Larsen (2011), utilitarianism is “a normative ethical theory under ethical Naturalism” and also a “teleological – consequential (outcome based) – ethical theory”. (Larsen, 2011) This means that Utilitarianism ideally judges actions based upon their outcome in society in producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and that the ‘utility’ of an action can be calculated through its use in the production of this social good. Utilitarianism as a guide to personal behavior can relate to both personal experiences of happiness or pleasure as a guide to conduct and a recognition of the greater good of society as a higher motivation for service. Through this, the basis for moral action is established in Utilitarianism for both the individual and society. One of the major ways that Bentham and Mill differed in their theory of Utilitarianism is that Bentham based his definition of ‘the good’ in a limited formulation of pleasure and pain that defined happiness objectively through the individual, but tended to reduce Utilitarianism to the principles of hedonism, while Mill based his definition of Utilitarianism in a conceptually expanded view of happiness that included societal ideals, virtues, and altruistic beliefs of human activity in order to represent ‘the greater good’ in a wider manner. (Driver, 2009) Another difference is that Bentham is regarded retrospectively as proposing “Act Utilitarianism” whereas Mill was an advocate of “Rule Utilitarianism”. (Lotito, 2002) Act Utilitarianism applies logic and reasoning to each individual and collective activity in order to determine through direct cognition, moral reasoning, and reflection whether or not the activity serves the happiness of the greatest number of people. Rule Utilitarianism seeks to establish predetermined rules of order related to moral reasoning that can be applied by the individual or groups in making decisions that operate on their own fundamentals of interpretation according to utilitarian logic and can be further discussed, verified, or formally accepted by the society as policies, laws, or collective standards. The two writers also differed fundamentally in their view of human nature. In analyzing these main differences between the theory of Utilitarianism as presented by Bentham and Mill, the philosophy can be used in interpretation of historical or hypothetical events, such as the moral dilemmas presented in the film “Saving Private Ryan”. The basis of happiness in Bentham’s Utilitarianism is pleasure and pain, making it an organic philosophy that can be extended to other humans, species, or sentient beings as a fundamental or universal motivation. (Driver, 2009) Bentham states that pleasure and pain is the most appropriate standard for the calculation of morality in secular societies such as the early democracies proposed by Enlightenment thought, as this definition operates on an organic, scientific basis that can be distinguished as objective to experience in relationship to the apparently subjective theological distinctions of “good” and “evil” in religion. Bentham is seeking to base morality in science through building pleasure and pain into universal motivations related to happiness that govern the system of moral reasoning in both the individual and society. Bentham’s system requires subjectivity and experience in a conscious way in humanity, but does not require God to operate as a philosophical system of governance. The good is defined in the experience of the individual through feelings of pleasure and the existential equivalent of evil is pain as experienced in the individual subjectivity. Expanded from the individual to society, Bentham’s Utilitarianism could define the social good in quantitative terms, and therefore what was good collectively could be defined in terms of its utility in increasing the social welfare for the greatest number of people objectively. Historically, Bentham’s liberation of morality from religious authority and grounding it in scientific principle of operation (utility) is important, but his defining of the good through pleasure and absence of pain left Utilitarianism open to the reformulation that Mill would undertake in his exposition of the theory. Rather than being content with the hedonistic, reductionist view of pleasure and pain as Bentham proposed it relating to good and evil, Mill saw higher feelings of happiness related to altruistic concerns as the foundation of the good in humanity and reorganized Utilitarianism as a theory around this expanded or reformed view of morality. Happiness deriving from ideals, virtues, and altruism represents a broader basis for defining the good, but is still subjective and relative to individuals and groups. Mill’s Utilitarianism did not dispute the varied nature of individual experiences of happiness, but rather used virtue as a more developed view of pleasure in the calculus of moral reasoning. In ‘Utilitarianism’(1863), John Stuart Mill defines the relationship between happiness and virtue as reliant on the pleasure-pain dynamic, but also transcending it through higher values. He wrote, “there is in reality nothing desired except happiness. Whatever is desired otherwise than as a means to some end beyond itself, and ultimately to happiness, is desired as itself a part of happiness, and is not desired for itself until it has become so. Those who desire virtue for its own sake, desire it either because the consciousness of it is a pleasure, or because the consciousness of being without it is a pain, or for both reasons united; as in truth the pleasure and pain seldom exist separately, but almost always together...” (Mill, 1867) If various individuals experience or define happiness differently, then democratic principles of governance could be used to determine the social standing of the position objectively in both Bentham and Mill’s formation of Utilitarianism. In this manner, Utilitarianism is easily associated with the growing movement of democracy in Europe and internationally, as related to the development of Enlightenment thought, as it recognized multiple and varying moral definitions in society but approached them quantitatively when determining the general welfare. Mill’s Utilitarianism also dealt with the principles of both scientific and democratic law, to be further used as a ground in legal judgment. Because of these differences, historians of philosophy have classified Bentham as an “act utilitarian” and Mill as a “rule utilitarian”. “An act utilitarian uses thought processes associated with Utilitarianism (i.e. the principle of utility) to make all decisions, this requires a lot of thought and careful calculation... Contrary to an act utilitarian, a rule utilitarian uses the principles of utility to create a set of rules by which they live.” (Lotito, 2002) In this context, it is easier to understand and evaluate criticisms of Bentham for being a “pleasure seeker” or hedonist as charged by his contemporaries. The hedonist values pleasure as the highest good, yet in doing so can easily define and justify an individual or collective path of immorality by catering to the base desires and sense pleasures in life that lead to debauchery, selfishness, or excessive behavior. Mill’s rule utilitarianism is more acceptable to virtue-governed moral reasoning in a democratic society and avoids the pitfalls of self-indulgence as a logic trap in Utilitarianism as a formal theory. As happiness can be rooted in higher idealism both individually and collectively, these virtues can also be applied as rules in a systemic moral philosophy such as Utilitarianism. Mill addresses the criticisms of Bentham that saw Utilitarianism as leading to hedonistic reduction by establishing the pleasure-pain experience as related to higher moral reasoning in virtues. However, both act and rule Utilitarianism can be criticized for objectifying the subjective bias of the individual or groups as universal through majority rule in authoritative decisions relating to morality in social legislation, even though both try to avoid this in advocating moral operational systems in individuals that can oppose mainstream values through protest, resistance, and other social reforms of values. The different views of human nature that are found in the Utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill are distinguished by the relation of virtue, guilt, and conscience primarily as motivators or governing agents of consciousness and society. From this, Bentham’s theory of human nature is more aligned with the theory of natural law which views a primordial freedom of thought and action as definitive of being in the world. Mill’s exposition of Utilitarianism mediates the universals of natural law to be in accordance with the compromises necessitated by society and democratic governance. Mill’s theory can be viewed as the more mature and extensive system which describes the complexities of human motivations in higher idealism through their own consequences without over-reducing the issues to hedonism. Without the awareness of the power of virtue, guilt, and conscience to govern behavior and define the good in ways contrary to self interest, the full range of human experience and motivation is not expressed in the philosophy. From this it can be seen that Mill’s reformulation of Bentham’s Utilitarianism was actually required by the limitations of the original theory in the pleasure-pain duality. Once Utilitarianism is understood as a system of thought, operating according to its own principles of governance, it can be then applied in situations as interpretation by both the individual and the State. This is “Act Utilitarianism” in the individual or “Rule Utilitarianism” when the interpretations are communicated and shared in groups. In viewing the actions, motivations, and conflicts of the characters in “Saving Private Ryan”, these two forms of interpretation can be used. For example, each character in the movie who is participating in the war can be seen as applying act Utilitarianism in their decision making. When the soldiers join the Army, they are either volunteering or drafted. The volunteers believe that the social good is found in the protection of the happiness of the greater society, and so are willing to sacrifice their personal pleasure or even their lives to protect other people. Through this analysis, they are also willing to override the moral injunction not to kill, in order to protect innocents, the rule of law, and their social vision. They are willing to violate personally held laws in order to achieve a greater purpose and goal, which may be naturally selfish in that it is the survival of their own selves, families, and political system, or it may be unselfish in protecting the values, institutions, and lives of others, complete strangers. Those who are drafted make a decision whether or not to resist the draft, or to serve as commanded, following orders that may go against their personal moral beliefs but doing them anyway in order to avoid the negative consequences of breaking the law. World War II is a classic example of the use of Rule Utilitarianism, where moral interpretation is used to justify disgusting activities that violate the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others because of unseen but morally reasoned “greater goods” that may or may not be existent outside of systemic belief and understanding, i.e. collateral damage, bombing of civilians, killing of innocents, etc. Bentham was influenced by Hobbes who had a pessimistic view of human nature, all too aware of the ignorant, insensitive, selfish, greedy, corrupt, and self-serving nature of human beings that lead to countless examples of cruelty, abuse, exploitation, theft, bullying, murder, etc. in personal relationships. If the majority defines their happiness or pleasure corruptly, based on unsound or incorrect principles but not caring to change or correct them, the minority may suffer unjustly for extended periods of time under the rule of mob values, ignorance, or brute force. Utilitarianism also correlates with moral and cultural relativism, through the same democratic aspects of majority valuation of morality in social groups. Religious authority and royalty appear to be more closely associated with concepts of universal or pre-existent truth that is divinely ordered, socially established by authority beyond humanity, or an aspect of nature and God’s creation. The problem is that Utilitarianism leads to far too many compromises of virtue and moral principles in favor of an ideal of the collective good that is most favorable to the ruling class, wealth, or established political authorities. Utilitarianism should lead to recognition of unselfish, altruistic principles as the foundation of society, but more often is used as a tool to strip minorities of rights and liberties by democratic authorities in the name of the common good, and therefore seems to promote a weakening of the truth or ignorance masked as truth in society based on the calculation of utility in a subjective and biased manner, given legitimacy through objective standards in Utilitarianism. Sources Cited Bentham, Jeremy (1823). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation, Volume 2. Printed for W. Pickering, 1823. Web, viewed 07/13/2011. Driver, Julia (2009). The History of Utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Mar 27, 2009. Web, viewed 07/13/2011. Simon Larsen (2011). UTILITARIANISM - CHURCH, ETHICS & SOCIETY, LESSON 5, Oslo International, 2011. Web, viewed 07/13/2011. Lotito, Christopher (2002). On the Utility of Bentham and Mill. Drew University, 2002. Web, viewed 07/13/2011. Mill, John Stuart (1863). Utilitarianism. From ‘Chapter 4 - Of what sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible’, Utilitarianism.net, 2011. Web, viewed 07/13/2011. Read More