A comparison of the utilitarian philosophies of jeremy bentham and john stuart mill

Understood as a theory about moral obligation, act utilitarianism postulates: For the human-beings possess more elevated faculty than the animal appetite, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which doe not include their gratification.

The second objective seems to explain by and reduce to moral ought, the duty or the moral obligation may be ultimately based on the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The line he drew between private and social concerns is a fairly clear one: Mill had a different notion.

Further Mill insists the compatibility of the following with the principle of utility originally proposed by Jeremy Bentham: Let the opinions impugned be the belief of God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality By happiness is meant the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain.

Yet not only was there a greater strength of sentiment against it, but, in England at least, a less amount either of feeling or of interest in favour of it, than of any other of the customary abuses of force: Combine this criterion of rightness with a view that we should be actively trying to promote overall happiness, and one has a serious incompatibility with psychological egoism.

To John Stuart Mill, altruism is the meaningful basis for the moral command and responsibility. As a social reformer, Bentham applied this principle to the laws of England -- for example, those areas of the law concerning crime and punishment. His heart answered "no", and unsurprisingly he lost the happiness of striving towards this objective.

Perhaps his greatest contribution to philosophy and political theory was his pedagogic "experiment," giving his son John Stuart Mill the most effective humanistic education that was conducive to the child prodigy. Certainly, it does not mean that a person would have performed a particular act under all conceivable circumstances.

To be sure, Bentham thinks that most people think of the other and of their happiness, too. In contrast to a form of hedonism that conceives pleasure as a homogeneous matter, Mill was convinced that some types of pleasure are more valuable than others in virtue of their inherent qualities.

This view was combined with a view of human motivation with egoistic elements. An analysis of theft reveals that it not only causes harm to the victim, but, if left unpunished, it endangers the very status of private property and the stability of society. As mentioned, Mill arrives at a different conclusion.

His complete list is the following: This means we recognize that the consequences of this particular action would be damaging if everyone acted that way. Next to selfishness, the lack of mental cultivation may be pointed out. In Chapter 4 of Utilitarianism Mill noted … does the utilitarian doctrine deny that people desire virtue, or maintain that virtue is not a thing to be desired?

Mill attempts to show that the desirable is desirable because it is actually desired. Let us turn to the first step of the argument.

John Stuart Mill

According to him, that which is visible means that something is capable of being seen, thus, that which is desirable automatically makes us desire it. One must not forget that Mill is a hedonist after all. The philosophical implication of this relationship between Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill was enormous.

Just as Mill speaks in a moral context about how noble characters will not strive to maximize general happiness CW 8,he could argue in an aesthetic context that artists should work from a purely aesthetic point of view.

So far they have not succeeded. The argument is questionable because Mill overturns the presumption he introduces: At the age of three he was taught Greek. Act utilitarianism would say that an action is objectively right, if it actually promotes happiness.The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value.

They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of. Mill speaks of morality in the sense of desire versus desirable but he contradicts that of Jeremy Bentham.

He further states that the true utilitarian interprets the greatest happiness principle to mean not my greatest happiness but the greatest happiness of the greatest number.[1].

Compare and contrast the utilitarian philosophies of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Which do you think is the more convincing moral theory, and why?

In terms of Utilitarianism, this assignment shall outline the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham and. 1 UTILITARIANISM A. Overview 1.

Jeremy Bentham

Associated with the English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill Jeremy Bentham () John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill (20 May – 8 May ), usually cited as J.

S. Mill, was a British philosopher, political economist, and civil servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism, he contributed widely to social theory, political theory, and political economy.

Ethics - Mid-Term. Study Guide. STUDY.

The History of Utilitarianism

PLAY. ETHICS / MORAL PHILOSOPHY. The study of moral truths.

The utilitarian philosophies of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill Essay Sample

It is a branch of philosophy. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

A Comparison between the Moral Philosophy of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant

A utilitarian argument for abortion could be that for a woman to continue the pregnancy, bad consequences such as the loss of a job or the burden of caring for the .

Download
A comparison of the utilitarian philosophies of jeremy bentham and john stuart mill
Rated 4/5 based on 16 review