International Journal of Philosophy Study (IJPS), Volume 4, 2016 www.seipub.org/ijps doi: 10.14355/ijps.2016.04.003
Mill’s Critique of Bentham’s Utilitarianism Abdul Latif Mondal Research Scholar, Department of Philosophy, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India Email: latif09pyb12@gmail.com Abstract Millʹs famous essay ʺUtilitarianismʺ to begin with an almost is true of the hedonism of Bentham. First and most important, it is Millʹs unwillingness to accept the Benthamʹs view holding that all pleasures are qualitatively on a par. On the contrary, Mill argues, we must differentiate between ʹhigher and lowerʹ pleasure. Utilitarianism, the ethical doctrine that the good of any action is tested by its contribution to the results, especially human happiness. It should be focused on what brings happiness to the greatest number. It tries to prove rational and scientific foundation for morality. Rational based on calculation, and scientific is based on observation. Bentham thinks an action is right if it produces the greatest amount of pleasure rather than pain. Mill thinks an action, if only it conforms to generally accepted rules, creates most pleasure for most people. Bentham considers quantitative pleasure, and Mill considers qualitative pleasure, not just quantitative pleasure. Keywords Bentham’s Utilitarianism, Mill’s Utilitarianism, Qualitative, Quantitative Approach
Introduction Jeremy Bentham According to Bentham, “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters – pain and pleasure. So it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as what we shall do.”1 In his book “Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation”, Bentham says, that a motive is substantially nothing more than pleasure or pain operating in a certain manner. The motive is always some pleasure, or some pain. Some pleasure of the act in question is expected to be a means of producing; some pain is expected to be a means of preventing. Therefore, according to Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only possible motives to action, the only ends of which we can aim. Similarly, J.S Mill says “Desiring a thing and finding it pleasant, aversion to it and thinking of it as painful are phenomena entirely inseparable, rather two parts of the same phenomena; to think of an object as desirable, and to think of it. As pleasant, they are the same things; to desire anything, except in proportion as the idea of it is pleasant, is a physical and metaphysical impossibility.”2 J.S. Mill claims we always desire that pleasure is the only object of our desire. Ethical Hedonism: according to Ethical Hedonism, we ought to seek pleasure; it is the proper object of our desire. Many hedonists base ethical hedonism on psychological grounds. Bentham and J.S. Mill do so. But Sdgwick rejects psychological hedonism and advocates ethical hedonism. According to him, pleasure is the reasonable object of our desire. According to Altruistic hedonism universal or general happiness, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” is the ultimate moral standard. Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill both advocate this view. But Bentham advocates quantitative pleasure while Mill advocates qualitative pleasure. This view is called utilitarianism. This theory judges all action according to utility. Gross or Quantitative Utilitarianism of Bentham: Dimensions of pleasure: Bentham says that the value of pleasures is quantitative. But quantity has many forms. It has seven dimensions of value. 1. Intensity 2. Duration 3. Proximity 4. Certainty 5. Purity (freedom from pain) 6. Fecundity (fretfulness) and the last 7. The number of person affected. Psychological Hedonism: Bentham is an advocate of psychological hedonism. He says, “Nature has placed man
13