|
Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill were both Utilitarian philosophers that held the belief that all the actions should lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Both felt that the greatest good was happiness (the attaining of pleasure, absence of pain), however the types of pleasure differed between the two men.
Bentham felt that that pleasure was purely based off of quantity. Push pin was a good as poetry, meaning that one pleasure was equal to all other types of pleasures. Watching pro wrestling is as good as watching a ballet, as long as it makes you happy (and doesnt harm the greater good). To determine what exactly is the greatest happiness, he offers the Calculus of Felicity. To determine the utility of an action, one evaluates the following: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (how soon), fecundity (how many more), purity, and extent. One must look at the actions consequences, and judge them by this calculus to see whether or not they should be committed.
A more subjective view than that of Bentham is that of Mill, who believed in quality of pleasure. He disagreed with the quantitative theory, bringing up the following argument: that if all pleasures were equal, human pleasures would be equal to that of animals, and what rational human would give up a dissatisfied human form to assume a satisfied, say, swine form? No rational man. So, only higher pleasures (that of intellectual proportion) would lead to the greatest happiness, not that of the lowest pleasures. The burden of determining what the greatest pleasure is goes to a select group of intellectuals in society, that he called competent judges. Competent judges were those that had experienced both intellectual pleasures and hedonistic pleasures, and could give an adequate decision on which was the greatest pleasure based off of which they desired more. The greatest pleasure was to always be one of high intellectual standards; because if of one of lower proportion was the most desired our societys morality would deteriorate. So, one should always strive to seek pleasures of an intellectual magnitude, hence increasing his own happiness and societys (on a wholes) morality.
I believe that both ways of determining pleasure have their pros and their cons. Quantitative can be a good approach because it is less objective. One person may prefer watching an opera, and one may prefer watching a talk show, and who is to really say which is a greater pleasure. A competent judge would be biased, and there are some people who would prefer that lower standard of pleasure even after experiencing it. To deny them that pleasure would increase their suffering, going against the principle of utility. However, determining pleasure by quality does have the point that some pleasures are more fulfilling than others. If we all desired those pleasures, then society would progress in art, science, math, etc. Society could then be as a whole happier, if the majority of the people desired those things. But not all of society seems to desire that, unless they are all just ignorant as Mill suggests, which seems rather unlikely. In conclusion, despite the compelling reasoning of Mill, I would agree with Benthams philosophy (pertaining to society) because it allows greater freedom to the individual.
|
