Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction to morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Introduction to morality
Jeremy Bentham was a British political reformist and philosopher. Bentham is best known for his moral philosophy and philosophy of law. While Bentham’s work was not heavily influential during his lifetime most historians agree his works published posthumously had a huge impact on western philosophy and law. Bentham lived from 1748 to 1832 and lived primarily on his wealthy fathers inheritance allowing him to focus on writing. Most of Bentham’s work was philosophy of law - his most famous work being An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation which focuses primarily on moral philosophy.
On January 1, 1879 Clarendon Press published An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. It was the most important piece of Bentham’s moral philosophy. In 1913, Elie Halévy author of History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century and historian wrote “there are three principal characteristics of which constitute the basis of Bentham’s moral and political philosophy: (i) the greatest happiness principle, (ii) the artificial identification of one’s interests with those of others and (iii) universal egoism” (page # of quote). Since this book most historians have used this three-part theory to divide An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. It begins with the greatest happiness principle where we see the birth of utilitarianism, then the artificial identification of one’s interests with those of others, and lastly Bentham introduces universal egoism.
The Merriam-Webster definition of universal is “done or experienced by everyone” This is the definition that will be used with this word when applied to egoism. The Merriam Webster definition for egoism is “a doctrine that individual self-intere...
... middle of paper ...
...English People in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Barnes, 1961. Print.
"Universal." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. .
"Egoism." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. .
"hedonism". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 19 November 2013.
Weijers, Daniel M. "Hedonism." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., 10 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
Weijers, Daniel Michael. Hedonism and Happiness in Theory and Practice: A Thesis Submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy [in Philosophy]. New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington, 2012. Print.
The word hedonism originates from the Greek name for pleasure. In chapter 1 of The Fundamentals of Ethics, Shafer-Landau defines hedonism as the view that "there is only one thing that is intrinsically good for us: happiness. Everything else improves our lives only to the extent that it makes us happy" (25). Enjoyment is said to be the key to a good life. Throughout the chapter, he goes on to list the most important reasons for hedonism's popularity.
The Argument from False Happiness gives good reason to accept that the idea of pleasure being the only thing that is intrinsically valuable in life is ultimately not practical and that what makes a life good is what causes the pleasure in the first place. Hedonists will argue that the cause of happiness does not matter, only that we end up being happy. This seems like a logical point of view, as no one actively wants to be unhappy. However, the hedonist’s view is flawed because it counts on a very delicate circumstance: if a person’s happiness stems from false beliefs, then they must not find out that their belief is false because that will lead to disappointment and pain, thus making their life
Hedonism is a theory of morality. There are several popular philosophers who support hedonism; some of whom offer their own interpretation of the theory. This paper will focus on the Epicurean view. Epicurus, a Greek philosophers born in 341 B.C., generated a significant measure of controversy amongst laymen and philosophical circles in regards to his view of the good life. Philosophers whom teachings predate Epicurus’ tended to focus on the question of “How can human beings live a good, morally sound, life?” Epicurus ruffled feathers and ultimately expanded the scope of philosophy by asking “What makes people happy?”
As humans we are constantly in search of understanding the balance between what feels good and what is right. Humans try to take full advantage of experiencing pleasure to its fullest potential. Hedonism claims that pleasure is the highest and only source of essential significance. If the notion of hedonism is truthful, happiness is directly correlated with pleasure. Robert Nozick presented the philosophical world with his though experiment, “The Experience Machine” in order to dispute the existence and validity of hedonism. Nozick’s thought experiment poses the question of whether or not humans would plug into a machine which produces any desired experience. Nozick weakens the notion of hedonism through his thought experiment, claiming humans need more than just pleasure in their lives. Nozick discovers that humans would not hook up to this machine because they would not fully develop as a person and consider it a form of suicide.
Bentham's theory calls for "ultra-democracy", he believes that each individual has the right to decide what the public interests are. He insists that the interest of the community is nothing than the sum of the interests of several members who compose it. And to be able to understand any individual's interest, you should understand his preferences and the pleasure he seeks, which could be achieved through maximizing the preferences of the greater numbers. Bentham was objected to the "sinister interest" of the ruling elite, because he has a great believe that they were bound to pursue their own interest, which in turn the interest of the minority and could be conflicted to the rest of the society's interests. Therefore, the only remedy for this evil is to allow each person a share in choosing who will represent his or her interests in the parliament.
With any form of hedonism, one is committed to the concept that pleasure is the chief good. In an extremely generic form of hedonism, it seems as though the quality of sensual pleasure should be given no more weight than the quality of emotional pleasure and vice versa. Additionally, this sort of hedonism would hold that the acquisition of kinetic pleasures would increase overall pleasure to seemingly no end, a concept which Epicurus’ doctrine would reject. Even if we understand death to be a genuine ceasing to exist, we must conjecture that it is bad for a person to die in the sense that it terminates even the possibility to acquire more pleasure. Under this concept of hedonism, we must agree that a person who lives a pleasurable life for ...
... making actual decisions, not selecting favourable experiences (which remain unchanged over the course of two years). In reality, relationships provide richness to pleasure, heightening it further than any fake pleasure could have been. There is always the challenge of trying, learning, failing and finally achieving. This achievement provides greater pleasure as well because one is able to distinguish between the lowest level (failure) and the overcoming of it at its highest level (achievement). Hedonists should see that it is important to be in tune with the entirety of reality, instead of just experiencing certain aspects of it.
Ethical Egoism A rear assumption is that the needs and happiness of other people will always affect our moral ethics. If we accept this assumption, we think that our moral ethics balance our self-interest against that of others. It is true, that “What is morally right or wrong depends not only on how it makes us feel, but also how it affects others”. The idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively to do in his lifetime for others is known as Ethical Egoism.
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
In conclusion, it is apparent that universal ethical egoism has many arguments. Moreover, it is clear that this theory tends toward solipsism, a person's view that only he or she exists, and the omission of many of the deepest human values, such as love and deep friendship. In addition, it violates the principle of fairness and it prohibits altruistic behavior, which one would perceive as morally permissible.
The pain in which people are avoiding can be psychological/ emotional, or physical. Hedonism can be acknowledged in two ways; the way the constitution stresses it is the ‘pursuit of happiness’, but some people do not use this as a way to better themselves. It is meant to be used as a means to better one’s self and strive for excellence. Whereas people use this as a reason to use substances to alleviate pain and discomfort stemming from a physical sensation, or from
Ethical egoism is arbitrary and puts ourselves above everybody else for no apparent reason. Ethical egoism splits everybody into two groups, ourselves and everyone else, and says that we are the morally superior. This brings up the question, why are we, ourselves, morally superior to everyone else? Failing to answer this question, means that the ethical egoist has no rational reason to choose ourselves over anybody else. So, with similar rational, it could just have been that everyone else is morally superior to ourselves. The ethical egoist seems to be completely arbitrary in this decision. This theory doesn’t even know why it is putting us, ourselves, above everybody else. One can compare this to a racist who says white people are more superior to blacks (Rachels). Several decades ago they would rationally argue that blacks are intellectually inferior and a threat to the world peace but today there is substantial amount of evidence to refute these claims. Now the racist has no reasons for the racial discriminations and white people and black people are equal, meaning that being racially against black people is arbitrary and has no rational reasoning. Indeed, ethical egoism is just as arbitrary as racism is, but once again, utilitarianism
Bentham realised that because this theory is based on the outcome of our actions it may be difficult to assess fairly which action will produce the most happiness. He therefore developed the ‘hedonistic calculus’, a form of calculating the happiness resulting from an act by assessing 7 different factors of the pleasure produced such as intensity and duration. In doing this Bentham was attempting to create some sort of ...
Happiness is not easy to define. A good life has one characteristic – happiness. Happiness can be defined as pleasure, joy, contentment and satisfaction. Understandings of how to be happy were changing throughout the history. Aristotle who lived in 4th century BC in Athens and Schopenhauer who is19th century philosopher from Germany have contrasting understanding of happiness. In this essay I will argue that Aristotle and Schopenhauer provide accounts of happiness that are useful to contemporary society. The reason for this is that happiness is universal and people’s ways to achieve it did not changed tremendously over times.
Morality as a whole tries to create a distinction between right and wrong, good and bad. Making decisions should arguably always be aimed towards good. Under the philosophical doctrine of Utilitarianism, philosophers like Bentham and Mill recognize that human kind should make their lives useful and good through bringing about happiness or pleasure. The idea of the “Greatest Happiness Principle was introduced by Bentham, who was a Utilitarian predecessor to Mill. According to Mill, human lives should abide by the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” This principle states that actions are good as they tend to promote happiness; and bad as they promote the reverse of happiness, therefore humans should make a conscious choice of action that will lead