Mill vs Bentham, Political_Science, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Political Science

Mill vs Bentham

Mill vs Bentham In what ways did John Stuart Mill’s version of utilitarianism differ from that of Jeremy Bentham? Which do you consider preferable? The Cambridge International Dictionary of English defines utilitarianism as “the system of thought which states that the best action or decision in a particular situation is the one which most benefits the most people”. This is the main idea of the system of thought and it is from this the beliefs and opinions of John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) and other early utilitarians were developed. Jeremy Bentham, a friend of J. S. Mill’s father and the mentor of J. S. Mill, is usually considered the founder of British utilitarianism. J. S. Mill adapted Bentham’s ideas and philosophies to meet the criticism utilitarianism encountered in Victorian times, expressing his version in the essays Utilitarianism (1861) and On Liberty (1859). Although the differences between the ideas of Bentham and Mill are very few, Mill’s adjustments are important and greatly alter the basic foundations of the system. To fully understand the origins of the ideas and opinions expressed by Mill and Bentham it is useful to examine their backgrounds and influences. John Stuart Mill was the eldest son of James Mill, a British historian, economist and philosopher. He was educated entirely by his father, who was a strict disciplinarian, and by the age of 10 had read all the Latin and Greek authors commonly read in the schools and universities of the time. His main reading, however, was history and by this age had read the whole works of the historian Herodotus, and was acquainted with the satirist Lucian, the historian of philosophy Diogenes Laërtius, the Athenian writer and educational theorist Isocrates, and six dialogues of Plato. While the training of the young Mill has aroused amazement and criticism, its most significant effect was the close association it encouraged with his father, James Mill. As a boy, he often spent much time in his father’s study and regularly accompanied his father on his walks. Inevitably he acquired many of his father’s opinions and his way of defending them. He did not, however, receive this information passively as the duty of collecting and weighing evidence was impressed on him at every turn from a young age. Mill accepted this strict form of education up until he was around the age of 20 when he went though a ‘mental’ crisis and became apathetic about utilitarianism. He continued to intellectually believe in the legitimacy of the ideas of utilitarianism but was no longer interested in promoting it. He believed that his father’s method of education was too analytical and ignored the development of his emotional self. He spent time reading literature, particularly poetry, of the Romantic period to cultivate the emotions that had been neglected by his father’s style of education. He became less of a ‘manufactured man’, produced to his father’s specification, and began to form his own ideas, considering his father’s views to be narrow and doctrinaire. After this, Mill decided to develop a new version of utilitarianism that did not conflict with his newly discovered attitude. Jeremy Bentham was born into a wealthy Tory family and was educated at Westminster school and Queen’s College, Oxford. He trained as a lawyer and was called to the bar in 1769. He soon, however became disillusioned with the law, especially after hearing the lectures of the leading authority of the day, Sir William Blackstone (1723-80). Instead of practising the law, he decided to write about it, and he spent his life criticising the existing law and suggesting ways for its improvement. Bentham was closely associated with the doctrine of Utilitarianism and the principle of `the greatest happiness of the greatest number' but this was only the starting point of a radical critique of society, through which he aimed to evaluate the usefulness of existing institutions, practices and beliefs. He lived through a time of major social, political and economic change and the 'industrial revolution,' with the massive economic and social shifts that were caused by it, the rise of the middle class, revolutions in France and America are all reflected in his considerations on existing institutions. He spent much of his time engaged in intense study, sometimes eight to twelve hours a day and by his death he had written tens of thousands manuscripts on many subjects. In 1808 he met James Mill, John Stuart Mill’s father, who fully supported Bentham’s ideas on utilitarianism. Bentham founded a group of intellectual philosophers called the ‘Philosophical Radicals’, or simply the ‘Benthamites’, of which James Mill became a prominent member along with David Ricardo, George Grote and John Austin. Bentham and James Mill founded the Westminster Review, which aimed to propagate Radical views and to oppose the Whig supporting Edinburgh Review and the Tory Quarterly Review. It was in this publication that much of J. S. Mill’s work was presented, although he also wrote for other newspapers and journals including the Morning Chronicle and Parliamentary History & Review. By the 1820’s Bentham had become a widely respected figure both in Britain and other parts of the world and many of his ideas continue to be at the centre of academic debate. Bentham’s work is still considered to be the true basis of the utilitarian philosophy. His most influential works, in terms of how much they influenced the Victorian reform, are An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), widely considered as the founding document of British utilitarianism, and Constitutional Code (1830-41) He believed that “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”(p. 225)#. He believed that one situation is better than another if it involves a greater amount of pleasure than pain, or a lesser amount of pain than pleasure. The more pleasure there is in the world, the better, and Bentham did not care how this pleasure is produced. He notoriously said that ‘pushpin’, a simple pub game, was as valuable as poetry as long as they provide equal amounts of pleasure. Along with this idea of pleasure and pain as sovereign masters Bentham introduced what he called the principle of utility. This principle is based on the fact that "every action should be judged right or wrong according to how far it tends to promote or damage the happiness of the community" (p. 29)#. Basically, the morally right action should be determined by judging which will maximise total happiness - the greatest happiness to the greatest number. Bentham suggested that legislators and individuals involved in government should weigh the pleasure that certain actions would bring to all affected by them before making a decision. He had six criteria for evaluating the pleasure-pain relationships of an action in a method termed the ‘felicific’ or ‘hedonic’ calculus: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity and purity. He believed that each individual pursues his own happiness and that it is the purpose of the legislator to “produce harmony between public and private interests”#. Bertrand Russell gives a good example of what this means in practical terms: “It is to the interest of the public that I should abstain from theft, but it is not to my interest except where there is an effective criminal law. Thus the criminal law is a method of making the interests of the individual coincide with that of the community; that is its justification”#. In short, Bentham’s belief was that all individuals should pursue their personal happiness as long as it does not compromise the happiness of the community. J. S. Mill shared many of Bentham’s beliefs, but altered some to create a more sensitive version of utilitarianism. Mill argued that “Pleasure is the only thing desired; therefore pleasure is the only thing desirable”#. He believed that there were different sorts of pleasure: higher and lower, with higher being more desirable than lower pleasures. Bentham’s, and others’, simplistic forms of utilitarianism put all pleasures on an equal level, and are criticised because they ignore the subtleties of human existence. They reduce life to a “stark calculation of animal-like pleasures, with no concern for how these pleasures are produced”#. Mill’s higher and lower pleasures meet this criticism and he believes that “it is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig; and it is better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool”#. He defines higher pleasures as intellectual pleasures (which pigs are not capable of) such as learning, and lower pleasures as physical, or sensual, pleasures, the desires that human beings share with animals. Mill believes that intellectual pleasures are more valuable and argues that “it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures...” (Utilitarianism, 1861). Despite Mill's contention that humans are motivated to act in a way that appeals to their more elevated faculties, it would appear that on a daily basis people relinquish their higher faculties to the immediate gratification of lower faculties in moments of temptation. This often happens when either two bodily or bodily and mental pleasures come into conflict. For example, a person would ultimately desire to enter into a long term, monogamous relationship that fosters love and security. Yet that person simultaneously desires physical relationships with many people that s/he is attracted to. Frequently the person who wants the long-term relationship abandons that goal in a time of temptation for a one-night stand. They discard the higher pleasure (the relationship) for the fulfilment of the lower pleasure (sex). Mill believes that this common occurrence develops from an individual's inability to realize the higher pleasure. They come to enjoy inferior pleasures precisely because they can no longer enjoy the higher pleasures or because they do not have the access to them. He believes that the purpose of all human life is to pursue happiness and avoid pain and that everything else that is desirable is a means to these ends. The question often asked about utilitarianism, ‘Why maximise happiness?’, then is really just about what makes happiness desirable. Mill offers an analogy to explain this: the only way to prove that an object is visible is to demonstrate that others can see it. He claims that the only evidence to prove that happiness is desirable is that others desire it. Each individual desires his or her own happiness, so general happiness is the sum of individual happiness and is itself desirable. Another area that Mill was more sensitive to than Bentham was that of individual moral rights. Bentham believed that the only ‘real’ rights a person had were legal rights and that individual moral rights conflicted with happiness and excellence, Mill, on the other hand, thought that individual moral rights are a necessary means to maximise the happiness of a community. He believed that rights represent the most basic social utilities necessary for human well being; human culture cannot flourish if society does not protect individual rights. Thus, rights are fundamental to the greatest happiness principle (utility), since they must be protected for people to be able to enjoy anything else. As a result of his willingness to distinguish in value between different types of pleasure, and his view that the pleasures of the intellect are the most valuable, Mill has been called an "eudemonistic" utilitarian. Alternatively, he could be seen as a "stratified" hedonistic utilitarian, since he retains Bentham's emphasis on pleasure or happiness, but "stratifies" the notion of pleasure or happiness based on differences in quality between the various types of pleasure. Both Mill’s and Bentham’s ideas of utilitarianism contain many interesting concepts, but also several flaws. One major problem is with Bentham’s ‘hedonic’ calculus as it concentrates on the consequences of an action rather than the motives. According to his theory, if a person were to commit an act for the wrong reasons, or even a wrong act, it would be perfectly acceptable as long as its consequence is long term pleasure for the greatest number of people. For example, is it reasonable to sentence thieves to death to stop other thieves from robbing people? Although Bentham believed that punishment (pain) should be balanced by a reduction of pain, or increase in pleasure to others, sentencing thieves to death may in the end produce the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. Even if one accepts ‘hedonic’ calculus as a method for assessing ethical behaviour, there is still the further problem of defining happiness itself. Bentham’s ‘hedonic’ calculus seems to be simply his own personal desires rather than a revelation of any objective criteria. Mill’s theory of higher and lower pleasures is also problematic. The suggestion that intellectual (higher) pleasures are of greater value than sensual (lower) pleasure leads us to question whether the argument is objective truth or subjective opinions of Mill’s. The latter, in my opinion, is more likely as it is not surprising that he, as a well known intellectual, would defend the merits of intellectualism and believe that these pleasures are of intrinsically more value than merely physical ones. Another fault in Mill’s theory is that it basically allows the majority to trample over the needs and desires of the individual in order to obtain ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’, even though much of his work was concerned with the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and the rights of the individual. This leads to questions about dealing with minority groups in society such as whether a group of Muslims, native to the country, should be denied the right to build a mosque to worship in, simply because the majority do not follow that faith? The majority may not always be right, but according to Mill’s (and Bentham’s) theory, it is their needs and desires that are most important and must be provided for. Utilitarianism is an interesting system and both Bentham’s and Mill’s versions offer sensible guidelines for the individual and for legislation. They can, however, only be understood as guidelines due to their shortcomings. I personally prefer Mill’s version as he bases his ideas on the degrees and quality of pleasure which can be experienced, not just on the quantity. Bentham’s simplistic view does not fully comprehend the diversity of human emotion and the effects it has on moral judgements. They both, however, rely on consequences to aid in a moral decision - this being the major flaw in both versions - but it is impossible for one to predict the full implications of ones action before proceeding without using some kind of time-travelling device! Mill’s views may be more sophisticated than Bentham’s, but are still based around the principles Bentham introduced and therefore still contain many of their basic imperfections. But Mill never tried to claim that his version was perfect, as Nigel Warburton in Philosophy: The Classics says: “...he does not believe a theory such as utilitarianism can be prove to be true”#. Utilitarianism is essentially a system based in belief, not in the supernatural, but in the reliability of science to dictate the difference between right and wrong and make our moral decisions for us. Bibliography: Bibliography Burr and Goldinger, Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. New York: Macmillan, 1992 Dinwiddy, John. Bentham. Oxford and New York: Oxford UP, 1989 Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: The Classics. London: Routledge, 1999 Russell, Bertrand. Western Philosophical Thought. Unwin University Books, 1961 Knowles, Dudley. Political Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2001 Crisp, Roger. Mill: On Utilitarianism. London and New York: Routledge, 1997 Mill, J. S. On Liberty. Penguin Books, 1982 www.utilitarian.org www.utm.edu/research/iep (Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy) www.philosophypages.com www.cambridge.dictionary.org (Cambridge International Dictionary of English ) Bibliography Burr and Goldinger, Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. New York: Macmillan, 1992 Dinwiddy, John. Bentham. Oxford and New York: Oxford UP, 1989 Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy: The Classics. London: Routledge, 1999 Russell, Bertrand. Western Philosophical Thought. Unwin University Books, 1961 Knowles, Dudley. Political Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2001 Crisp, Roger. Mill: On Utilitarianism. London and New York: Routledge, 1997 Mill, J. S. On Liberty. Penguin Books, 1982 www.utilitarian.org www.utm.edu/research/iep (Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy) www.philosophypages.com www.cambridge.dictionary.org (Cambridge International Dictionary of English )

Word Count: 2577