The major arguments are as follows: Bentham held that man is selfish and then tried to burden him with selflessness but if selfishness and selflessness are two completely contradictory elements, any attempts at making a compromise between them are futile. The origination of selflessness from pure selfishness is impossible.
So his doctrine suffers from all the defect of psychological Hedonism. Our desire is primarily directed towards some object, the attainment of which is followed by pleasure.
If we desire a pleasant object, it does not follow that we desire pleasure. Moreover, very often the more we seek pleasure, the less we get it. This is the fundamental paradox of Hedonism. Moreover, even if we naturally seek pleasure, it does not follow that we ought to seek pleasure.
In fact, if we naturally seek pleasure, there is no point in saying that we ought to seek pleasure. Thus psychological Hedonism does not necessarily lead to Ethical Hedonism.
There is no necessary connection between the two. In fact, the ideal cannot be evolved from the actual. He holds that the surplus of pleasure over pain determines the Tightness of an action, and that the surplus of pain over pleasure determines the wrongness of an action, so he looks upon pleasure and pain as concrete things which can be added and substracted and thus quantitatively measured.
But feelings of pleasure and pain are purely subjective states of the mind and can not be measured like coins. They are highly variable in character. They depend upon variation in mood temperament and circumstances.
Thus hedonistic calculus proposed by Bentham in impracticable. He does not offer any argument for altruism. He does not give any reason for our pursuit of general happiness. He thinks the nature of man to be essentially egoistic.
To obtain the greatest portion of happiness or himself, says. Bentham, is the object of every rational being. From this pure egoism, Bentham can never evolve altruism; but still he recognizes the extent of pleasure, and thus introduces altruism into his doctrine.
But he gives no reason why the pleasures of greater extent are preferable to those of smaller extent.
In fact, intellectual pleasure and aesthetic pleasure can be shared by a large number of persons. The former are higher pleasures- since they satisfy reason.
|The nature of utilitarianism||He focused on monetary expansion as a means of helping to create full employment.|
|Jeremy Bentham - Wikipedia||The ingredients of utilitarianism are found in the history of thought long before Bentham. Antecedents of utilitarianism among the ancients A hedonistic theory of the value of life is found in the early 5th century bce in the ethics of Aristippus of Cyrene, founder of the Cyrenaic school, and a century later in that of Epicurusfounder of an ethic of retirement see Epicureanismand their followers in ancient Greece.|
The latter are lower pleasures since they satisfy sensibility. But Bentham does not recognize qualitative difference among pleasures.
The extent of pleasure covertly refers to its quality. We choose to obey the laws of Nature, Society, State and God not for their sake, but for our good. We are compelled by these external sanctions to sacrifice our own pleasure and interest to those of other by prudential considerations.
These external sanctions can create a must or physical compulsion, but never an ought or moral obligation. All pleasures are equally alike in kind or equality. But this is a distinction of psychological facts.
Intellectual pleasure, artistic enjoyment and spiritual bliss are decidedly higher in quality than the pleasures of eating and drinking.
How can we weight the pleasures of others? From the hedonistic stand point, it is not Justifiable. Why should others pleasures be preferable to our own?Secondly, Jeremy Bentham will be discussed as the propagator of the Principle of Utility which determines human self-interest and voluntary action to achieve the greatest good or greatest pleasure.
Thirdly, I will discuss John Stuart Mills and his more complex version of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism, in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill according to which an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if .
7 Important Criticism Against the Bentham’s Gross Utilitarianism Article shared by Many arguments have been advanced against the foregoing Gross Utilitarianism of Bentham. Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy.
Jeremy Bentham, ‘Essay on Nomenclature and Classification that his metaphysics was the foundation of his utilitarianism. For example, Elie Halévy’s classic study makes no substantial reference to Bentham’s metaphysics.2 out by some social critics.
For example, he argues that that dangers of the Critics of Jeremy Benthem Utilitarianism. Though there are many supporters of utilitarianism given the fact that this theory prioritizes the benefits of the happiness and satisfaction of the majority not the minority, there are some philosophers and scholar who critique its implications - Critics of Jeremy Benthem Utilitarianism introduction.