The question of whether either Jeremy Bentham’s or J.S. Mill’s account of the tenet of hedonism is adequate, begs the further question – to what? Bentham’s own thoughts on hedonism is that we should all be pleasure seekers, never stopping to consider if our actions/decisions and revisions are of normative moral value or even if they promote the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number,’ as Mill would have had it. Bentham and Mill, when compared have very little in common with each other in terms of their values other than they both seek out a Utilitarian thesis (pleasure above all things), as means of explaining their thoughts on morality. And so, in this essay I will attempt to demonstrate how the two philosophers’ compare when we consider what it is they mean by the principles of ‘utility’ and ‘utilitarianism’, which I hope by the end of the essay we will have separated and shown how each has its flaws and similarities; all of which hold the same principles at heart – that of the ‘pleasure principle’ or utility and that of ‘veracity’ the utilitarian ideal.
Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) was the first to establish the formal doctrine of Utilitarianism by means of his moral theory of ‘utility’ – literally ‘usefulness.’ The principle of utility according to Bentham is to promote the ‘greatest happiness’ and he recommends that the responsibility of the individual and the bodies that govern them, is to promote the felicity (happiness) of those subjugated by the institutions of the land – should they wish to adhere to them; and that those who do support the fecundity of their own desires should also champion the cause of those who stay within its boundaries. Bentham’s concerns on the topic of ethics may well be crude by the standard of today’s society but still, his account of how people should conduct their behaviour and decision making comes down to the central two themes contained within his thinking, (1) Hedonism and (2) Consequentialism. These two values make up ‘Act’ Utilitarianism;
(1). That people should seek out pleasure to the detriment of anything difficult or painful and that these pleasurable sensations should be measured quantitatively (0 -100+) in terms of the overall happiness such indulgences could possibly bless you with. The archetypes measured are: intensity, duration, the certainty of it happening, the amount of time it takes, the likelihood of repeating the process and finally to what extent will the process of enjoying same activity extend to others who may do the same?
(2). And that we should be mindful of the consequences of our decision making, should they being about unpleasurable sensations, or pain for that matter. These painful or oppressive sensations detract from the score of those above.
This basic ‘felicfic’ calculus Bentham would have us believe can measure the extent of our overall happiness over a given period of time and so quantify our experiences according to a sliding scale of joy! The only thing we should really add to Bentham’s account of hedonistic consequentialism is that in Bentham’s opinion we should make our moral judgements according to a couple of general rules of thumb, these being – does the person(s) making the moral decision have the integrity to deal with the guilt (or any other unpleasurable sensation) and how many people may benefit from the decision that is reached?
An example of Bentham’s thinking is to consider eating your favourite food as say – + 60 pluspoints, as you eat this meal regularly and you never get tired of it, it doesn’t take long to cook and what is more your friend is here to enjoy it with you. Now suppose that the same evening you break the cooker and won’t be able to have the same meal for a month, this may count for – 90 pluspoints. Thus, when you calculate the level of enjoyment gained from cooking your favourite meal for you and your friend, the sum of its inception is in fact – 30 pluspoints. Which would make it a terrible evening!
These tenets of how persons’ should go about making moral decisions was then later revised by the son of one of his contemporaries, John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873); who developed Bentham’s crude treatise by suggesting that all people should consider the quality as well as the quantity of how much joy there is to be had in any given sensation. He too measured these extremes of pleasure and pain according to a sliding scale – but for Mill, sensations were not his main concern: in fact Mill was advocating his case for the higher pleasures rather than base sensations, as one may place the ability to reason or indulge in intellectual pursuits over and above say, the experience of watching pornography. As Mill would have thought it is ‘better to be Socrates satisfied than a pig satisfied,’ and so he advocates asking intelligent people such as philosophers and other experienced people to be the judge of whether any pursuit is in fact of value, or whether it is to be avoided rather than measuring them according to some quantitative measuring rod.
A working example of how the two philosophers’ thoughts on hedonism contrast is to consider whether choosing to study philosophy for all its intrinsic value (as Mill would advocate) is going to benefit me and those who support me, or whether I should have taken this year off and gotten a well deserved rest, so I can indulge in my favourite activities – smoking, drinking and going parties! Now, Bentham in all his wisdom would always tell me to keep my interest in philosophy to a minimum – as it is so difficult, whereas Mill would be a stern advocate for the deeper understanding of the higher mind – which can be acquired by reading philosophical texts. Therefore on a sliding scale, I think that quantitatively – having a good time at a party is worth much more to me in the short term (except for the memories of any special event), than the close reading of a philosophy textbook. However, I already know that in my development as a writer I have explored the esoteric nature of my own life, and reading philosophy helps me understand the innermost nature of people like me and the motives they have and so, qualitatively – studying philosophy will help benefit my development as a writer. Thus, a parallel can be found between the two seemingly incompatible extremes of wild abandon and deep thought. This comparison should suit any person, as they’re two polarised ends of the same spectrum – though they are both compatible with enjoyment; as one clears your mind and the other gives much food for thought.
So, what criticism can we lay on the parallels and contrasts of the two doctrines? In my own analogies we have attributed the same value to Bentham’s analogy that ‘push pin is as good as poetry,’ as we do with Mill’s retort – ‘better to be Socrates satisfied than a pig satisfied.’ Here we shall attempt to demonstrate their differences.
A criticism of Bentham is that he is seemingly interested in the ‘greatest happiness’ of those who wish to pursue their own ends within a familiar world that is safe and hospitable, and neglects to give any thought to those who may be oppressed by the activities you may be at liberty to indulge in. In the age Mill lived in, which can only be seen as desperate at best – Mill’s revision of his basic precepts demanded that individuals and government, should be responsible for organising and maintaining the health and welfare of its citizens, through public bodies – such as the temperance movement (in his day) and the provision of family doctors. It is thanks to the likes of Mill that this country has an infrastructure of sewers and drains, habitable homes and public services and amenities. The foremost thing I can say about Mill though is that through his eyes we can have both pleasure and give thought to serious pursuits equally, as his account of utilitarianism is an egalitarian thesis on behalf of the utilitarian ideal of the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’ and it makes room for the quantitative values of Bentham to shine through, as Mill’s later work On Liberty, demonstrates…
…Mill does however, make a stern case for strict self – control when it comes to anything seen as hedonistic, such as smoking, drinking, sex, food or any other number of potentially harmful things. Mill is of the opinion that we should all pursue the higher faculties of the mind and body, such as deep thought, proactive sports and enjoying exercise for the benefits it offers, rather than smoking, drinking and enjoying the company of others who do the same.
Further to the points raised above we have to make clear that the extent of Mill’s thoughts on utilitarianism go much further than Bentham’s in his efforts to change the society he lived in. Mill was a stalwart of rule utilitarianism, that is – he hoped to bring about a change in society by means of his philosophical doctrine that we should all live well within the safety of the utilitarian law that states, ‘an act is right when it conforms to the rule that promotes happiness.’ For example – say you are late for a train to London and so you don’t get a ticket from the kiosk and instead jump on the train without one. Now, you know that if you are asked to show your ticket – you don’t have one, but it is entirely reasonable that you’ll be able to ask the guard to print one off for you as the train is almost empty. So no problem, unless of course there is no guard on the train, in which case – should you purchase a ticket at the end of the line, or simply walk through the exit without paying a penny? If it were a moral judgement you were to make, the majority of people wouldn’t think anything of getting away with it, after all it’s just a ticket. Mill however, is firm in his belief that this is the wrong decision to make. The railway network (was), a public infrastructure for the benefit of everyone who needs to use it should be treated with respect, and thus we should pay our fare. Therefore the rule that promotes happiness is that we should pay our fare or risk bringing the whole of the Virgin Intercity line down. This we can assume would not promote happiness for those who rely on the service daily.
However, of this last point, we can add that often Mill would make allowances for the bending or breaking of any hard and fast rules, should they promote the greatest happiness principle of his utilitarian thesis, as he thinks it ‘expedient’ that such trite rules of engagement in the social contract can often and easily be ignored – just so long as it doesn’t weigh too heavily on your conscience, or cause a catastrophe for that matter! In comparison – the same for Bentham would only result in something of an anti – climax of happiness.
To conclude, neither Bentham’s nor Mills’ account of ‘consequentialist hedonism’ are adequate to give evidence or a firm foundation to a life well lived. Measuring things by degrees or by judgement isn’t always a guarantee of happiness, no matter whether the sensation you are so fond of be a sense of ecstasy or power, or even your pride and influence as a learned professional – bear it no heed. The truth of the matter we should really be concerned with is our welfare as individuals, citizens and employees and this is what utilitarianism meant up until the early 1920’s – public works for gainful employment and town sanitation, the temperance movement and all kinds of public bodies and institutions for the betterment of the common ‘man’ – or woman for that matter – as the universal sufferage movement was just one of Mill’s many interests during his illustrious lifetime.
The final words I can offer the debate are that individuals and society at large should act according to the principle of Bentham’s utility – that we have ‘two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.’ [This] principle of utility recognise[s] this subjection and assume[s] it for the foundation of that system.’ ‘The object of which is to raise the fabric of [happiness] by means of reason and law.’ (Barber, A. 2011. Pp.183). And I would assume Mill would add to this that we should take pride in what is respectable, and promote those causes which are of deep significance and value to all who are concerned for their welfare, including free education, medical care, public services and social order, all the while maintaining our liberty – should we have any – and our freedom.
Corporeal Mind 