NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

BENTHAM V. MILL: COMPARISON & ANALYSIS OF

UTILITARIANISM THEORY
(Term paper towards the fulfillment of the Project in the subject of Jurisprudence - II)

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

SUVIGYA TRIPATHI PROF. SHYAM KRISHAN KAUSHIK
UG SEMESTER IV FACULTY OF LAW
B.A, LL.B. (HONS.) N ATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITY,
SECTION - B JODHPR.
ROLL NO.: 1367

WORD COUNT: 2250

WINTER SESSION
 (JANUARY - MAY, 2017)

JEREMY BENTHAM

According to Bentham, nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign

masters pain and pleasure. So it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as

what we shall do. In his book Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,

Bentham says, that a motive is substantially nothing more than pleasure or pain operating in a

certain manner. The motive is always some pleasure, or some pain. Some pleasure of the act in

question is expected to be a means of producing; some pain is expected to be a means of

preventing. Therefore, according to Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only possible motives to

action, the only ends of which we can aim. Similarly, J.S Mill says Desiring a thing and finding

it pleasant, aversion to it and thinking of it as painful are phenomena entirely inseparable, rather

two parts of the same phenomena; to think of an object as desirable, and to think of it. As

pleasant, they are the same things; to desire anything, except in proportion as the idea of it is

pleasant, is a physical and metaphysical impossibility.

J.S. Mill claims we always desire that pleasure is the only object of our desire. Ethical

Hedonism: according to Ethical Hedonism, we ought to seek pleasure; it is the proper object of

our desire. Many hedonists base ethical hedonism on psychological grounds. Bentham and J.S.

Mill do so. According to Altruistic hedonism universal or general happiness, the greatest

happiness of the greatest number is the ultimate moral standard. Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill

both advocate this view. But Bentham advocates quantitative pleasure while Mill advocates

qualitative pleasure. This view is called utilitarianism. This theory judges all action according to

utility. Gross or Quantitative Utilitarianism of Bentham: Dimensions of pleasure: Bentham says

that the value of pleasures is quantitative. But quantity has many forms. It has seven dimensions

of value:

1. Intensity

2. Duration

3. Proximity

4. Certainty

5. Purity (freedom from pain)

6. Fecundity (fretfulness) and the last

7. The number of person affected.

Psychological Hedonism: Bentham is an advocate of psychological hedonism. The principle of

utility subjects everything to these two motives. Nature has placed mankind under the

governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure It is for them alone to point what we

ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do.

Bentham argues that as we do desire pleasure, we ought to desire pleasure. His ethical hedonism

is based on psychological hedonism. Hedonistic Calculus In hedonistic calculus, he says weigh

pleasures and weigh pains and as the balance stands, there will stand the question of right and

wrong. Here, the main question is of right and wrong. According to him, if an action gives more

pleasure than pain, then it is right. If an action gives us more pain than pleasure, then it is wrong.

Here, rightness stands for pleasurable and wrongness stand for painfulness.
 JOHN STUART MILL

John Stuart Mill (18061879), the second utilitarian educated at home by his father, is a

prominent economist and member of the philosophical radicals. Mills famous essay

Utilitarianism commences with an almost reaffirmation of the hedonism of Bentham. Yet Mill

was far from being a mere slavish disciple of his tutor. First and most important, it is Mills

unwillingness to accept the Benthams view holding that all pleasures are qualitatively as par. On

the contrary, Mill argues we must distinguish between higher and lower pleasure. He makes the

distinction in the often quoted passage, It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig

satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. The fact that the fool and the

pig enjoy more pleasure than Socrates cannot, Mill believes, offset the fact that the quality of

Socrates pleasure is almost infinitely higher than theirs. Mill is in effect abandoning the

hedonistic theory. On the question of psychological hedonism Mill both agrees and disagrees

Bentham. Although he believes that we are able to desire things other than pleasure virtues for

example, he maintains that in doing so we must consider these things to be a part of pleasure,

hence in desiring them we really still desire only pleasure.

Mills account of utilitarianism can be summarized in the following five statements. These are:

The only thing which we can desire is pleasure.

The proof of this is the fact that people do actually desire it.

Pleasure or happiness of his or her own person is good to that person. And general happiness is

good to everyone.
 Men do desire other objects, but they desire them only as means of pleasure

If one of two pleasures is preferred by those who are related with both pleasures, we say that

preferred

pleasure is superior in quality to the other.

Bentham and Mill were hedonists; therefore, their view of utilitarianism was that performing all

those actions which would maximize pleasure for as many people as possible. There are three

kinds of utilitarianism: (i) Act utilitarianism (ii) General utilitarianism and (iii) Rule

Utilitarianism.

ASSUMPTIONS IN CONCEPT OF UTILITARIANISM

One of the main assumptions of Utilitarianism is that the main goal of the individual is pleasure

Mill specifies that utility in its essence is pleasure itself and that the actions of the individual is

predicated upon achieving the greatest level of happiness possible Another main concept of

Utilitarianism is the Greatest Happiness Principle which states that actions are right if they

promote happiness and wrong if they promote the reverse of happiness Mill elaborates by saying

that the reverse of happiness would be unhappiness or pain and that any experience is only

desirable if and only if they are a source for pleasure

One of the strengths of the Greatest Happiness Principle is that pleasure is the sole pursuit of the

human being which assures that the person adopting this lifestyle would be happy with the

direction of their lives at all times However one of the weaknesses is that actions that promote

the happiness of the individual may not be the right decision for that individual at that point in

time One must take external factors such as demands in school or the workplace as well as

demands from a significant other for example before any action can be taken to achieve personal

pleasure

Mill also states that there are different levels of pleasure that base pleasures are no more

desirable than pain In the core facets of Utilitarianism human pleasures are superior to

animalistic or base pleasures Mill maintains that humans operate on a higher plane than any

other organism and therefore they use higher faculties Mill also states that once humans are

aware of those higher faculties they will always want them to be stimulated and in turn happiness

is a sign that those faculties are satisfied

A strength of identifying different levels of pleasure would help one to live a life of virtue and

righteousness as the process of determining moral decisions would be assisted by this concept

Always striving for whatever helps the collective discourages the practice of being selfish and

encourages doing whatever one can do help no matter what the circumstances However a big

weakness for this concept is that enjoying ones self can be a bad thing which is an integral part

of living a normal and healthy life Morality differs from person to person so living in a virtuous

and righteous manner is not for everyone as it is common for humans to falter from acceptable

behavior from time to time Therefore while Utilitarianism is a very admirable concept in theory

it actually would be very difficult to execute without exceptional amounts of mental and

emotional toughness
Another concept is that it matters not about the quantity of the pleasures but the quality as there

is a difference higher quality pleasures and lower quality pleasures Mill also states that higher

quality pleasures can be identified if one would choose that pleasure over another one even if

pain is accompanied with the higher caliber pleasure. Given access to every pleasure imaginable

one would rather choose a pleasure that appeals to the higher faculties of the human rather than

one of baser origin Mill justifies this by stating that an intelligent person would never choose to

act in an ignorant way and that a human would never indulge in the actions of an animal

Another important assumption that Mill makes about Utilitarianism is that contentment contrary

to popular belief does not equal happiness People who employ those humanistic higher faculties

tend to be less content as they are always trying to stimulate those faculties with pleasures

Furthermore animals tend to be content with their existences because their faculties dont need

the same amount of stimulation According to the Utilitarian definition of a good life it is better to

be a dissatisfied human than a perfectly content animal and it is even better to be an intellectual

who isnt satisfied with the world it its current state than it is to be a fool who doesnt have a care

in the world This is significant because Mill is saying that ignorance isnt bliss because humans

should always strive to better themselves intellectually so that ignorance is unacceptable. A

strength of prioritizing intellectual growth over personal happiness is that one could more likely

develop things to help the common good rather than focusing on ones self and personal pleasures

This would be considered settling for a lower quality of pleasure which is unacceptable

according to Utilitarianism
 COMPARISON

Utilitarianism is that theory which treats of the principle of utility of maximum, happiness as the

basis of morality and believes that actions are good in the same ratio as they produce pleasure

and are wrong in the same ratio as they tend to produce the converse of pleasure. The differences

are enumerated as follows:-

Justice and utility

Bentham was, characteristically, dismissive of the concept of justice: it was a phantom,feigned

for the convenience of discourse, whose dictates are the dictates of utility applied to particular

cases. Mill perceived justice in a different light, referring to it as implying something which is

not only right to do, and wrong not to do, but which some individual can claim from us as his

moral right.

Quantitative Hedonism v. Qualitative Approach

Mills Utilitarianism draws attention to the backward state in which speculation on the criteria

of right and wrong remains. The utilitarian creed accepts as the foundation of morals the

greatest happiness principle, i.e, that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote

happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. But to present a clear view of

the moral standards set up by utilitarianism much more requires to be said; in particular, what

things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open

question.
Benthams Quantitative Hedonism viewed pleasures as of one type onlyphysical or sensual.

The only difference among pleasures was one of quantity which was measurable by the felicific

calculus. Pushpin is as good as poetry, Bentham said, emphasising that the only real test for

goodness is the amount of pleasure an act produces. A moral thermometer could measure

degrees of happiness or unhappiness. Mill sought to substitute a qualitative approach to the

problem. Pleasures differ one from the other in kind and quality, not merely in quantity.

Qualitative descriptions among pleasures might render small amounts of high-quality pleasures

much more valuable than large amounts of qualitatively inferior pleasures. Benthams

unqualified theory would appear to suggest that it might be better to be a happy pig than a

miserable human being.

Altruism and utilitarianism

Bentham believed that people should help others to achieve happiness because in so doing they

would secure their own happiness, thus adding to the total happiness. Mill agreed generally to

this proposition but placed emphasis upon the significance of altruism (regard for others as a

principle of action). The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in

conduct is not the agents own happiness, but that of all concerned.
 CRITICISM

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 judgments. 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