Utilitarianism Is Not So Much a Political Philosophy - Essay Example

UTILITARIANISM IS NOT SO MUCH A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, AS A POLITICAL TECHNIQUE Introduction Utilitarianism is among the most prominent and influential tactics to normative ethics in major fields, but the most evaluated is philosophical history. However, most people had not heard of thisbefore the nineteenth century. All the same, through the limited information gathered in the century, it has been easier to trace other major contributions to the subject and ethical theory (Darwall 1995, 114). Today, multiple views, theories, notions and concepts exist based on dissimilar perspectives and discussions; nonetheless, utilitarianism revolves around the view that most good is a product of only the morally right actions in any given standard. However, the structure of the notion does not necessarily appear in this manner depending on the claim but the context is definitely similar. In multiple occasions, leaders apply utilitarianism in political initiatives making it appear as a political philosophy in most of these cases, depending on the particular initiatives and the dissimilar outcomes. Moreover, sometimes it is due to the manner that these leaders relate utilitarianism to achieve their goals. Generally, in every basis, utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which means that the evaluation of an action is relative to its consequences, whether in politics, religion or science. In most situations relative to politics, utilitarianism comes out as egoism especially since the consequences are of more significance than the actions. However, this notion also applies in distinguishing utilitarianism from egoism; typically, the scope and relevance of the consequences. Utilitarianism principles focus on maximizing the overall good, a core reason why it applies in politics; however, the best way to exploit this is considering both individual good and that of others (Mill 2002, 64). Multiple philosophers made vast contributions to utilitarianism; however, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill stand out because of their arguments’ context in an effort to make people understand utilitarianism as a form of ethics theory (Crisp 1997, 15&Bentham 1990, 8). They were hedonists about value through the identification of good with pleasure; moreover, they encouraged people to maximize the good by bringing about the greatest amount of good for the biggest number of people possible. An initiative that citizens expect from politicians; moreover, it should be the general basis of most political proprietors. Conversely, in a political philosophy stand point, distinguishing utilitarianism also takes place through independence and agent-neutrality. Under this aspect, everybody’s happiness is on a similar level where people consider someone’s good impartiality by evaluating how they have maximized the good. The good of politicians counts just as much as that of the citizens or other parties below them in the legislative hierarchy. Generally, most people that have a vague understanding of utilitarianism argue it to be an utter political philosophy; however, cosmic comprehension and exploration gives more evidence supporting it to be no more than a political tactic (Riley 2010, 72). It is an obligation for politicians and other relative parties to practice and fight for what is right; typically, this is not peculiar to anyone. Definitely, the mentioned few and other additional approaches to ethical assessment and decision-making brings controversy to the core facets of utilitarianism, the chief facilitators of alterations in the classical version of the theory. Decisively, this essay comprehensively evaluates the notion that utilitarianism is not so much a political philosophy, as a political technique. The key focus is on Jeremy Bentham’s concepts and illustrious principles on utilitarianism, mainly because he was more of a democratic reformer. However, the nature of utilitarianism is the basis of the arguments supporting the theory to be more of a political tactic. Nature of Utilitarianism Relative to Political Philosophy Resolutely, utilitarianism is one of the consequentialists’ ethical theories used to judge actions according to their anticipated results, hence making it partially a teleological theory; moreover, any utilitarian evaluates acts by means of the utilitarian principles that link the rightness and wrongness of acts to the balance of positive utility (good consequences) over negative utility (bad consequences). There are different ways to evaluate an act from a utilitarian perspective focusing on happiness or pleasure and unhappiness or pain as consequences when applying the classical version of the utilitarian principle, and taking into account a broader range of benefits and harms as part of analyzing the consequences based on the contemporary version of a principle (Austin 2007, 1). Naturally, political philosophies revolve around politics, liberty, rights, law and the implementation of aboveboard initiatives by people in authority or the different boards they belong to; additionally, every philosophy must reach the depth of elaborating and breaking down its every aspect. Concomitantly, the application of the statement ‘political philosophy’ mostly focuses on a particular political credence or boldness, a notion that largely goes against utilitarianism being in this category. Mostly, political philosophy is the comprehensive action, just like all other forms of philosophies, basing on the theoretical contraptions applying for the analysis of such concepts. Conversely, the analysis of such concepts (those classified as political philosophies) can focus on aspects such as antiquity, intent, fruition among others. Evidently, Jeremy Bentham, a democratic reformer, focused on rights for the majority rather than the few; significantly, his writings were the origin of the classical statement of the theory of utilitarianism (Donner 1991, 10). Through research, Bentham came up with the conclusion that people naturally seek to avoid pain arguing that good is that which equals the greatest pleasure and the least amount of pain for the greatest number of beings; therefore, a right moral decision is one that produces the greatest pleasure for a great number of people. Hedonism and Bentham’s Principle of Utility and Theories (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation) Generally, most people understand pleasure as an all pleasing sensation or experience of contentment, gratification, exhilaration among other aspects; as for pain, it can be an ache, annoyance, apprehensiveness, anguish and many other feelings. However, the quest remains on the sort of entity that ‘pain’ or ‘pleasure’ is; precisely, many theories and philosophies that explain and elaborate the nature of pleasure and displeasure but are not clear on a firm basis. This might not apply politically by understanding the basics of the classic theory of utilitarianism creates an utter comprehension of its application in politics and political science. Hedonism core values suggest that the only intrinsically good thing is pleasure and the only thing intrinsically bad is pain; typically, some things can be extrinsically good if they lead to pleasure or help avoid pain, and other things can be extrinsically bad if their result is pain or they prevent pleasure (Bob 2007, 1). On as hedonism basis, pleasure and pain come in episodes that consist of particular experiences a particular person had for a particular length of time; moreover, each episode has a determinate amount of intrinsic goodness or badness. Reflectively, Bentham is an outright psychological hedonist per his claim that discomfort and desire define people’s actions; more aspects that strengthen his hedonism include his work on determining people’s acts. Upon focusing on hedonism as a value theory, there is a lot in the argument that only preference or disapproval inspires people; simply, this hedonism obligingly consents that a section of hedonic incentives of people fail to control their deeds, and that one’s hedonically defineddeeds actually fail in getting them the pleasure (Bentham 1907, 15).Relatively, utilitarianism is more of a political strategy that politicians use as incentives to motivate or inspire their actions and those of the people they represents. Naturally, this is as far as it goes because they are unable to control most of these deeds or actions. Bentham’s argument on motivation, in relation to hedonism, is a clear depiction that people are always inspired to exploit to the maximum what they see as their own good; moreover, everyone accepts that their good is their utmost or necessary stability of preference over discontentment. This is contrary to the core properties of political philosophies that term them as an action, not a source of inspiration or motivation. Even though this argument bases on a motivational egoist perspective, it supports the claim utterly and inductively. However, there are controversies from people who disagree through claims that motivational vanity is at finest debatable. Frequently, preference stimulates people in the aspect where accounting for every situation bases on the notion that the more incorporated the interpretation, making hedonism the most amalgamated account; nonetheless, this notion shows that in confederacy esteem, it is the greatest interpretation of a person’s incentive to act (Bentham 1990, 12). Association or unification is among the best features for arguments of the internal drive to acquire. This argument clearly puts it out that there is no other feature that hedonism can score even from different perspectives and application of political science; moreover, the argument establishes the complete credibility of impetus hedonism and the opinion that it stands out as the most reasonable of all motivation philosophies, not politically. There are parallel arguments that arguably portray that people are sometimes stirred to develop themselves, to endure, to be present, live with truthfulness and so forth, claiming that every situation can be expressed using these and other terms; unfortunately, this rival views lack the unified feature like the motivational hedonism. From another perspective, relative to political philosophies, motivational hedonism is a daily veracity under the concept that when someone is motivated, his or her goal is having a great equilibrium of desire over discomfort.However, there lies a bigger problem in this argument as it also depicts that impetus hedonism isn’t genuine based on a daily definition. Nonetheless, hedonism can only apply as a tactic or strategy for politicians to meet their goals and simultaneously avoid personal discomfort.This leaves the people that they represent in jeopardy since their consequences are not clear, for all a person know they might involve pain, pleasure or even both. The capability of most hedonists to tell stories as to people’s motives in itself does not generate any reason to consider such narratives; however, Bentham’s claims, understanding and expressions change the rules of the game (Bob 2007, 1). Concurrently, one can use Bentham’s version of utilitarianism to decide on a path that seems to provide happiness and pleasure for most people beside himself. Additionally, he relies on hedonic calculus to make right choices and actions. From this, one can only perceive that the best utilitarianism to favor, on a political standpoint, is the Rule Utilitarian since it proposes that a person thinks before acting and if the outcome is most probably going to be positive then they decide it is good to follow. This acts more a philosophy than a strategy since it goes in depth to elaborate the best way to apply it. Tactlessly, the act utilitarian does not consider a generalization of the act but only regards it as single action with a sole outcome hence requiring them to weigh keenly on the possible consequences every time they act. From the analysis, both psychological and ethical hedonism act as tactics supporting the topic at hand since they both have vast significances especially in utilitarian and egoist traditions of ethical thought, and in empiricist and scientific naturalist philosophical traditions. As for the form of utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism describes the conviction that the particular ethical precision of any kind of action depends on the precision of the rules that allow it to achieve the greatest good unlike the act utilitarianism that works under the concept that any action often becomes ethically right the moment it yields the maximum good for many groups of people. Most people agree that it is not advisable following the act utilitarianism since it literally assumes the consequential part of the action but it is rational in cases where politicians want the best outcome for every party. Remarkably, as much as a person’s value of discomfort or pleasure evaluation takes place under some factors such as intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty among others for the purpose of general consideration; some aspects matter to the person themselves more (Mill 2002, 34). Even as a political tactic, evaluation of these factors is essential, especiallybefore the core action; moreover, it assists in the determination of the nature of the consequences (whether it will cause pain or pleasure). Summary and Conclusion Jeremy Bentham’s argument and hedonism as a principle of utilitarianism clearly depicts that it is more of a political strategy/ tactic based on the actions of politicians, application of political science and the consequences for everyone (Hutcheson 1969, 85). Most political philosophies are promising, in the sense that they apply for the greater good of everyone and it is in very few instances where the consequences acts as attributes of the deed. In political science and politics as a whole, this does not make sense as a philosophy; however, it is rational as a strategy because choice is never a moral issue, it is more about making the right decisions. According to utilitarianism, evaluation of the consequences, or in this case, the results depend on the concept of intrinsic value, and through this only what is right matters (Hume 1978, 28). Obviously, this is a good thing but there exists a gap in the assessment of all other values. Politics require vast exploration of every relevant aspect hence requiring them to evaluate intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Generally, utilitarian as a normative system is more of a political strategy, mostly because it gives an insight on personal actions; moreover, it stresses on first evaluating of the natural practices of a society, those that are later improved. Typically, motivation acts as the core gain from its application unlike most political philosophies that mostly focus on direction; nonetheless, there can be additional gains, but this is the most significant. Bibliography Austin, J. 2007, ‘Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy’: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 8 January 2015, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/ Bentham, J. 1907,‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bentham, J. 1990,‘Securities against Misrule and Other Constitutional Writings for Tripoli and Greece’, 2 ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press Bob, Z. 2007, ‘Jeremy Bentham’s Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Legislation’: URI Education, viewed 8 January 2015, http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/util.htm Crisp, R. 1997, ‘Mill on Utilitarianism’, London: Rutledge Darwall, S. 1995, ‘Hume and the Invention of Utilitarianism’, University Park, PA: Penn State University Press Donner, W. 1991,‘Liberal Self: John Stuart Mills Moral and Political Philosophy’, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press Hume, D. 1978, ‘A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge’, Oxford: Oxford University Press Hutcheson, F. 1969, ‘An Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue’, London; Raphael Mill, J, S. 2002. Utilitarianism, London; Hackett Publishing Company Riley, J. 2010, ‘Mill’s Extraordinary Utilitarian Moral Theory’: Politics, Philosophy and Economics Journals, vol. 9, no.1, pp. 67-116 Read More