Bentham’s Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism means we should always do what promotes the greatest amount of happiness. People that follow it are called utilitarians or epicureans. It means not just personal happiness, but overall happiness ‘not only the action of a private individual, but of every measure of government’ (p183).

One of its main champions was Jeremy Bentham through his 1789 work ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislature’ (or ‘Principles’ for short). Earlier exponents were Socrates in Plato’s Protagoras, Epicurus and ‘the Great Infidel’ David Hume.

Bentham’s Utilitarianism has two components:

Consequentialism which means you do actions which have the best consequences

Hedonism which means one action is better than another if it produces more pleasure and less pain.

Some people felt Bentham’s utility principle reduced human morals to a dreary form of functionalism. Hazlitt suggested Bentham ‘reduced the theory and practice of human life to … dull, plodding, technical calculation’ (Book 3, p52). It certainly seems to take the romance out of moral decision making. A bit like the decisions people made in the movie Logan’s Run.

Quotes from ‘Principles’ (in course book).

‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain’ (p183). Other moral theories based on other aspects of human experience are rubbish.

‘Pleasures then, and the avoidance of pains, are the ends that the legislator has in view: it behoves him therefore to understand their value’ (p184). For this purpose Bentham lists various values to pleasure,

a) intensity (in our mind)

b) duration

c) its certainty

d) its propinquity- how long it will be before the pleasure occurs

e) its fecundity- how long it will likely be caused to repeat itself

f) its purity- if it is likely to generate opposite sensation

To this Bentham added that an important aspect was how many people the pleasure would effect.

---------------------------

Bentham was trying to adopt a scientific approach to morality. This was revolutionary at the time (although it did mean his writing was a bit stiff and legalistic).

Like Glaucon he felt that human nature is driven by human interest. And this was based on Hedonism- pleasure versus pain.

Therefore he felt if society followed this the rule for the individual then the society as a whole would prosper. IE there would be a confluence between the two entities- societies and the individual.

Bentham uses punishment to prove this interplay:

Quotes from ‘Principles’ (in set text).

‘The immediate principal end of punishment is to control action. This action is either that of the offender, or of others.’ Physical restraint/reformation of character to stop them from doing it again and as an example for others to not do it. (p580)

Punishment also provides ‘a pleasure or satisfaction to the party injured’. This is secondary consideration. (p580)

General principle of punishment was to reduce mischief. ‘But all punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is evil’. So a balanced view needs to be taken- the greater evil needs to be eradicated. (p580)

In the following cases punishment should not be inflicted:

a) Groundless

b) When its inefficacious (ineffective). In such cases as infancy, insanity and intoxication.

c) unprofitable or too expensive.

d) when it is needless (mischief will naturally stop)

------------------------

Bentham had two motives for his views:

1. To apply a empirical scientific approach to matters of morals and ethics. This was revolutionary. Normally retribution was the reason for punishment.

2. To reduce inequality. He wanted to improve society as a whole.

Some problems with consequentialism

We could use the slogan ‘The ends justify the means’. In terms of utilitarianism this could lead to bad consequences. Eg an innocent man could be convicted to placate a baying mob. Such as what happened during the Great fire of London. A greater evil to society was prevented (a riot) but an innocent man was convicted. Other considerations than the best consequence needs to be assessed for morality.

Bernard Williams came up with another problem in his scenario Jim and the Jungle (p63). Do you shoot one Indian to save the other thirty? ….The fact is most people would feel that it would be difficult for them individually to do the deed, but could see that it would be the best to do. This conflict is what Williams terms as integrity. This shows a divergence from consequentialism and our actual moral code. However our actual moral which would provide this reluctance may be just an arbitrary code of our time in history and our culture. (eg we don’t have the same moral code as 300 years ago).

In Bentham’s code moral principles as above ‘carry no weight at all’. (p66). Only the consequences matter.

But I think consequentialism is good because it disregards moral principles as irrelevant. These moral principles (lying, stealing) are social constructs and could be prejudicial. IE some societies may or may not accept certain Christian moral principles. Consequentialism is universal (although minorities would need some protection).

 Separate note: about recording: the interviewee refers to utility as welfare? Is this correct.