UTILITARIANISM: A comparison of Bentham and Mill’s versions

Shared assumptions, methods and purposes  What is morally good is that which will bring about the ‘greatest happiness for the greatest number of people’  Morality of actions should be judged on their consequences only  So, the morality of an action is relative to the context / situation in which it is done  There are no absolute moral laws. This means that the same action can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances

 They are both interested in developing rational methods of devising moral guidelines  They both assume that the aim of morality is to benefit humanity  They make no assumptions or claims about any moral authority above humanity (God or absolute moral law)  Their arguments are not grounded in any metaphysical claims about the nature of morality  They argue that individuals can often make decisions for themselves.

Differences between Bentham and Mill  The differences are rooted in the fact that Mill’s Utilitarianism was a development of Bentham’s.  Bentham wrote in the late 18th Century, Mill wrote in the mid 19th Century.  The social and political context in which they wrote was different.

Bentham was an ‘Act Utilitarian’. whereas Bentham was an ‘Act Utilitarian’ ...whereas... Mill was a ‘Rule Utilitarian’ An Act Utilitarian makes a utilitarian judgement about each act individually A Rule Utilitarian will adopt general rules about the kinds of actions that tend to produce happiness i.e. ‘Don’t be racist’. These will make decision making easier and may prevent injustices. The rules also safeguard against actions that would normally be considered immoral, being justified on utilitarian grounds.

One of the reasons for Mill adopting his Harm Principle was that he was concerned to avoid the ‘tyranny of the majority’ which could occur under Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism.

Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus This is a formulae for calculating the likely utility of a proposed action which weighs various factors like intensity and duration. A formulae like this is necessary if one is to evaluate every act individually. (Bentham clearly still maintained a place for rules and laws in society). Mill’s ‘Liberty Principle’ or ‘Harm Principle’ Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism contained one very simple rule: That one should be free to do and say what one liked as long as one does not harm others.

Bentham and Mill’s different ideas about pleasure and happiness Bentham equated happiness with pleasure. The greater the extent, intensity etc.. of pleasure the better. He made no distinction between different types of pleasure beyond the criteria he applied in his Hedonic Calculus. He did not distinguish between the type of pleasure experienced playing Snakes & Ladders and Chess.

Mill regarded the various types of pleasures as being qualitatively different. ‘I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of a man as a progressive being’ On Liberty, 1859 By ‘the permanent interests of man as a progressive being’ he meant that humanity was capable of making intellectual and moral progress and that the ‘higher pleasures’ were grounded in this.

Mill distinguished between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures Mill distinguished between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures. The higher pleasures were mainly intellectual; Mill claimed that anyone who had experienced these would automatically prefer them to the lower pleasures which were primarily physical. ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’ J S Mill, On Utilitarianism, 1863

Summary Bentham: Mill: Act Utilitarian Rule Utilitarian Hedonic Calculus Quantity of pleasure Mill: Rule Utilitarian Harm Principle Qualitative pleasures (higher and lower)

Biographical notes about... Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill