Bentham Final

8/13/2019 Bentham Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bentham-final 1/19

Utilitarianism

&Bentham Nature has placed mankind under the governance

of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure



JEREMY

BENTHAM

Theory

of

Utility

Pleasure

& Pain

Theory of Value

Quantification of Action

Action of

Judges

Legislation

Property

Right

Punishment

Theory

Precedent

Max. PleasureMin. Pain

Parliamentary

sovereigntyAction

And More

Consequentialisttheory?

Forms of

Utilitarianism



Utilitarianism

[I]t is the greatest happiness of the greatest

number that is the measure of right and wrong

and every action is governed by pain and pleasure

Introduction

Utilitarianism ( from Lat. utilis: useful ) is a tendency within normativeethics.

Complex instrument for the empirical-rational justification of action



Introduction Cont..

The origins of utilitarian thinking go back to antiquity (Plato,

Aristotle and Epicurus),.

Also found in mediaeval times (Thomas Aquinas)

The early modern period (in particular, David Hume, Claude-

Adrien Helvetius and Cesare Beccaria)

Of prime importance is Jeremy Bentham, whose work An

Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1798)

laid the foundation of classical utilitarianism



The Utility Principle and the Felicific Calculus

Bentham begins his principal work An Introduction to the

Principles of Morals and Legislation with the assertion that

both our is and our ought are determined by pleasure and

pain

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign

masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we

ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand

the standard of right and wrong, on the other hand the chain of causes

and effects, are fastened to their throne

Next, Bentham introduces the principle of utility, which applies not

only to private individuals but also to the government:

By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves ordisapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which

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. I say of every action

whatsoever; and therefore not only of every action of a private

individual, but of every measure of government



Utilitarianism and Consequence

For the utilitarian, analysis of the consequences of actions is central tomoral thinking. Utilitarianism measures the moral quality of an action by

the quality of its consequences, not by its conformity to rules.

Accordingly, actions should be judged according to whether they are

useful on the basis of their consequences. Hence, utilitarianism is also

called a consequentialist theory.

Actions or rules for action are not adjudged right or wrong on their own

account, but by reference to their consequences for the people they

affect.

However, if the ethics of all actions are judged by their consequencesalone, it means that there are no good or bad actions per se. It also

implies that the intentions which underlie these actions are of no

importance. Nor is there any such thing as a good or bad motive per se.

A motive is only bad if it gives rise to an action with adverse

consequences



Sanction Source Time

frame

Physical Ordinary course of nature This Life

Political Institutional order This Life

Moral Popular community This Life

Religious Supernatural power This and

afterlife

Bentham obviously established an analogy

between physical and legal causation

asdsdfddf

A binding force to any law or rule of

conduct



Utilitarianism Depends on a Theory of Value

It is claimed that morality depends on the consequences of

an action

Utilitarianism presupposes knowledge of how good or bad

consequences can be recognized.

That is, it requires a theory about a suitable criterion for

assigning something a ‘value’, so that it can be designated as

‘good’ or ‘bad’.

For an action is not useful in its own right, but only with

reference to something else. In view of that, utilitarianismneeds a theory of value which defines the scale of utility, so

that the utility generated can be measured.

So utilitarianism is a combination of consequentialism, on theone hand, and a value theory on the other



Utilitarianism Depends on a Theory of Value

According to Bentham and J. S. Mill, utilitarianism itself takes up a value

theoretical position in which the fulfilment of human needs – human

happiness, in other words –

is held to be the highest value.

Thus the goal is the maximum satisfaction, or the minimum frustration,

of needs. For Bentham, human happiness is whatever the people

concerned believe it to be.

The means for achieving happiness cannot be determined a priori.

Knowledge of happiness, of the means to maximize happiness, and the

form of action most conducive to it, is a matter of experience alone.



What is needed in the first instance is empirical knowledge;

that is, knowledge of the consequences of an action and the

meaning of these consequences for the welfare of society.

Thus the utilitarian theory of ethics is firmly rooted in

reality.

According to Bentham, the utility of an action can bedetermined precisely by making reference to seven criteria

(1) Intensity

(2) Duration

(3) Certainty or uncertainty

(4) Propinquity or remoteness

(5) Fecundity

(6) Purity

(7) Extent



‘Extent’ refers to the number of people affected by the action.

For the calculation of utility, the nature of the pleasures and

pains concerned makes no difference.

Bentham analyses the different utilities quantitatively, not

qualitatively.

In contrast, John Stuart Mill introduced a qualitative

analysis of utility.

It is plain that if you say “Colour alone is good as an end”, then you

can give no possible reason for preferring one colour to another.

Your only standard of good and bad will then be “colour” ; and since

red and blue both conform equally to this, the only standard, youcan have no other whereby to judge whether red is better than blue.

[. . .] If we do really mean “Pleasure alone is good as an end”, then

we must agree with Bentham that “Quantity of pleasure being

equal, pushpin is as good as poetry”



The rightness of the utility principle is self-evident because it is

instilled in man by nature.

The utility principle, according to Bentham, is the sole ethical principle.

The inference of this claim to absoluteness is that all other

ethical principles must be wrong. In particular, it precludes the

existence of any human rights which could prevail over theutility principle.

According to Bentham, natural rights stem from mere wishful

thinking and hence they are nothing but rhetorical nonsense

“In proportion to the want of happiness resulting from the want ofrights, a reason exists for wishing that there were such things as rights.

But reasons for wishing there were such things as rights, are not rights;

– a reason for wishing that a certain right were established, is not a

right – want is not supply – hunger is not bread. [. . .] Natural rights is

simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptable rights, rhetoricalnonsense, – nonsense upon stilts”



Strength and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism

Strengths of Utilitarianism:

Convincing assumptions: preference for pleasure and happiness.

Explains morality as a social extension of natural inclinations.

Transforms difficult moral deliberations into manageable empirical

considerations.

Advances flexibility over dogmatic persistence on principles. The stress

is on the practices conducive to happiness not on natural rights or

norms.

Weaknesses:

The concept of happiness is not clear. Very vague: equated either with

pleasures or with the public good.

Measurements and the units of happiness are arbitrary and subjective.

Disregard for motives and intrinsic values could lead to immoral and

unjust consequences.

The social (altruistic) component could be too demanding if pursued

strictly.



Forms of Utilitarianism

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Bentham Final

Documents

Transcript of Bentham Final