More handpicked essays just for you.
Explain the utilitarian concept of bentham
Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham
Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Explain the utilitarian concept of bentham
Establishing a fair society is a daunting task due to the number of variables which are involved in the process. These may include but are not limited to the distribution of resources, power, and rights. Deciding how power and rights are distributed take precedence over distribution of resources. Therefore, we can look to certain schools of thought to answer the problem of establishing a fair society because they help us gain insight about who should receive power, or granted rights. These are the building blocks upon which is established the distribution of resources, and all other things which would be considered as a distributable “good” in society by Dr. Michael Sandel, the author of “Justice: What is the Right Thing to Do?”. Sandel introduces readers to the idea of Justice using the concept of “good” as a blanket term for all things society wants that are desirable. In his book “Justice: What is the Right Thing to Do?”, Sandel implies that goods, or “the things we prize” (Pg. 19), are the 33). This approach is based heavily on reasoning provided by Bentham that “We are all governed by the feelings of pain and pleasure” (Pg. 34). To apply fairness to all of society, Bentham found a universal trait that can be applied to all individuals in society, pain and pleasure. Sandel agrees on this point when he states “We all like pleasure and dislike pain” (Pg. 34). This idea suggests that because everyone is governed by these two masters, it is fair to say that we can use those to quantify what is just using a manner of decision making which is heavily based in a single variable calculus. The second approach does not agree with the very fact that such decisions could be made on a single variable, and there are other factors at play which must be
Skyrms’ explorations in Evolution of the Social Contract are based on the premise that human beings are, in fact, inclined to behave justly. His writings do not aim to prove that individuals act justly all the time; however they assert that the disposition exists in societies. Many would take issue with Skyrms’ assertion. Firstly, justice has many interpretations. According to some, equal division of a resource is not always what justice requires. Skyrms fails to address situations where an individual may have worked harder than another for a resource, and invested more time in it. Perhaps one individual would obtain more utility from a given amount of a resource than another would. Libertarians would demand property rights, and argue that one individual might better utilize the resource than the other, creating more benefit for society. Skyrms also fails to give specific interpretations of justice and does not offer any thoughts on what ideas of justice, if any, are cultural universals.
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
According to Rawls, the challenge of justice is to ensure a just distribution of primary goods that include powers and opportunities, rights and liberties, means of self-respect, income and wealth among others (Rawls, 2001). Rawls disputes the earlier predominant common source of injustice, the utilitarianism theory, which states that justice is best defined by that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The theory of utilitarianism ignores the moral worth of an individual. This theory does not take into consideration the minority. An example is the mistreatment of the Jews by the Nazi Germans (Rawls, 2001).
Why is it that a person has to offset his initial gain for the betterment of others? Rawls proposes this idea as the criterion for his second principle, the difference principle. What I argue however, is that the difference principle proposes to remove inequality from society but fails in this endeavor due to retaining enough inequality to benefit the disadvantaged, leaving the principle defective in its nature. This will be the question analyzed in this essay where I will first explain the two principles proposed by Rawls as well as the lexical order or priority, which is a central feature within A Theory of Justice. I...
When Bentham writes that, “By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, (all this in or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappi- ness to the party whose interest is considered.” He is basically saying do whatever means necessary to make the most out of it and if it applies to the individual, it only needs to benefit the individual but if it is referring to the community, the community must benefit as a whole. One should feel pleasure, but avoid pain since it represents the evil in one’s life. The ultimate goal of one’s life is to reach the climax of happiness, because that marks the end of the path. The author appeals to all three devices: ethos, logos and pathos because they are all incorporated into his writings.
Justice plays a valuable part in the public’s life; no matter who you are or where you are from. In Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? the reader encounters six specific approaches to lawfulness and ethical morality, which constitute of utilitarianism, libertarianism, Locke, Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle. Each of these definitive philosophies falls under one of three general concepts and categories. These consist of freedom, virtue, and welfare. Exclusively judging the title of the book, one may think that it attempts to solve or bring forth ethical and moral issues of our time. After reading the book however, the reader becomes aware that Sandel’s work is much
The goal is to achieve happiness and to avoid pain. He believed that a self-gratifying worth in acting derives from how a person feels, the length it last, the certainty, results that follow after taking actions, the benefits, and avoidance of any form of negative outcome. The methods of utility describe the meaning of moral obligation. This is refereed the happiness for all affected by the action taken. Bentham indicates that social policies are exanimated by the effectiveness it has on the general population that is involved. However, Mills utilitarianism on moral theory is an extension from Bentham’s view. He suggested some improvements to Bentham’s structure, meaning, and application (Philosophy Pages,
Jeremy Bentham is widely regarded as the father of utilitarianism. He was born in 1748 into a family of lawyers and was himself, training to join the profession. During this process however, he became disillusioned by the state British law was in and set out to reform the system into a perfect one based on the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle,’ ‘the idea that pleasurable consequences are what qualify an action as being morally good’. Bentham observed that we are all governed by pain and pleasure; we all naturally aim to seek pleasure and avoid pain. He then decided that the best moral principle for governing our lives is one which uses this, the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle.’ This is that the amount of overall happiness or unhappiness that is caused by an action should determine whether an action is right or wrong. He stated,
Bentham’s Utilitarianism sees the highest good as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham believed that by adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each possible act we should be able to choose the good thing to do. Happiness equaled pleasure minus pain. Bentham provided a way of measuring pleasure and pain, he called it the hedonic calculus. There are seven criteria to this calculus. First being the intensity being measured – how strong is the pleasure. The second criteria, duration – how long will the pleasure last. The third, certainty – how likely or unlikely is the pleasure. Fourth, Propinquity - How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain. The fifth, fecundity – what is the likely hood that a succession of pleasure will follow. The sixth criteria, purity – What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pain. Lastly, is the extent – how many people will be affected. This calculus gave Bentham a method of testing whether an action is morally right in that if it was good it would result in the most pleasurable outcome, having weighed up all the elements. These factors weigh up the potential amount of pleasure or pain which might arise from moral actions to decide which would be the best option to take. Ideally this formula should determine which act has the best tendency and is therefore
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
Before the main discussion of the Bentham's utilitarianism gets underway, lets first establish what utilitarianism is. As stated in the introduction, utilitarianism is a teleological philosophy that is primarily concerned with the results of an action when determining the nature of that act. Utilitarianism operates primarily under the greater happiness principal, in other words, utilitarians believe that one should only act in such a way that the results of that act should produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest for the greatest number of people. It is due to this view that utilitarianism is often criticized for being too hedonistic because it places the moral value of an act only on how much that act effects happiness. The teleological nature of utilitarianism also can serve as a problem because it pays no attention to the intention an action and can make acts of an immoral nature justifiably right. I will use the example that a professor of mine used in which a man tries to snatch an old lady's purse and in his struggle to do so he pulls her out of the way of a speeding vehicle thus saving her life. This act, although it started with mischievous intent, ended with a life being saved and surely produced the greatest amount of happiness for the old lady. In the utilitarian eye this act is morally acceptab...
In his theory of justice, Rawls aims to introduce a notion of justice that draws on both Kantianism and Utilitarianism, in that state institutions must universally apply to the notion that they are to respect individual humanity while being consistently conscious of the consequences that their ac...
Sandel then speaks about the philosophy of utilitarianism, by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham’s idea is that the right thing to do is to maximize the balance of pleasure over pain or happiness over suffering. He supported his idea stating every human has pleasure and pain, while liking pleasure and not pain. The overall summary of Bentham’s idea is “the greatest good for the greatest number”, believing you should make the best of the levels of happiness. To support Bentham’s theory by telling a real life story about the case of “The Queen versus Dudley and Stephens”. The story was about 4 men being stuck on a lifeboat with two cans of turnips. There was a captain (Dudley), a first mate (Stephans), a sailor (Brookes), and the last was a Richard Parcher, the cabin boy who was
Bentham devised The Greatest Happiness Principle that states “that actions are immoral if they are not the action that appears to maximise the happiness of all the people likely to be affected; only the action that appears to maximise the happiness of all the people likely to be affected is the morally right action.” Bentham used his happiness principle to help decide how legal matters would go and created the Hedonic Calculus which was a way to calculate the amount of pleasure that would be derived from an action. There were multiple factors that were taken into account when using the Hedonic calculus but generally which ever decision yielded the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people would be the decision