Jeremy Bentham versus John Stuart Mill

Utilitarianism speaks of pleasures, pain, quality, quantity, etcetera. This paper intends to reintroduce the definition, concepts, as well as, ideas provided by the greatest thinkers namely: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It also aims to state the differences between their concepts. Finally, its objective is to mention whose definition/concept/idea with regards to utilitarianism is more plausible. Utilitarianism According to Jeremy Bentham.Jeremy Bentham technically defines â€Å"utility† as â€Å"that property in any object, whereby it ends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered† (Bentham 1948, p. 126). Jeremy Bentham developed the aforementioned idea on utilitarianism through the following premises: First of all, that â€Å"pleasure, happiness, goodness, benefit, advantage, etcetera† are terms that equate to one another (Germi no 1972, pp. 235 – 236).Second is that the aforementioned terms in the first are actually measurable, thus, quantifiable as well (Germino 1972, pp. 235 – 236). Third, that an act of people, as well as, the government should be based upon the rule that take full advantage of pleasure and decrease pain (Germino 1972, pp. 235 – 236). Last but not least, â€Å"it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong† of human action in every situation, and in particular when governmental action is called for (Germino 1972, pp. 235 – 236).Utilitarianism According to John Stuart Mill John Stuart Mill, on the other hand, sees â€Å"utilitarianism† as the â€Å"foundation of morals† because it holds that, â€Å"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness† (Ebenstein & Ebenstein 1991, p. 580). What does John Stuart Mill mean w hen he mentions happiness and unhappiness, you may ask? Well, happiness he says is similar to pleasure and the non-existence of terrible pain or any kind of pain for that matter (Germino 1972, p.240). Unhappiness for John Stuart Mill, on the other hand, is akin to pain, as well as, the deprivation of enjoyment/pleasure (Germino 1972, p. 240). Differences This is where we see the first difference of his thoughts from that of Jeremy Bentham’s since at this point, he already rejects first premise, that all those terms aforementioned are all similar to each other or that the quality of pleasure is actually equivalent to each other (Germino 1972, p. 240).Deducing from that idea, if pleasures vary in superiority, as well as, in amount, and if only those men who have experienced the entire assortment of pleasures are capable of reflecting upon and comprehensibly articulating their experience are proficient of judging excellence, then the lawmaker/member of parliament can no longer e stablish/agree on governmental policy on the basis of â€Å"the greatest happiness of the greatest number† (Germino 1972, p. 240). Another difference is that, actually, John Stuart Mill is not focused on â€Å"the greatest happiness of the greatest number† but on the â€Å"greatest happiness† alone (Germino 1972, p.240). â€Å"Utility† is still equivalent to pleasure but now there is already an acknowledgment that there are various kinds because of excellence and greatness (Germino 1972, p. 240). Third, John Stuart Mill rejects the thought of Jeremy Bentham, which states that the motivations for humans to act can all be reduced to one’s own interest and to his own exploration for the utmost satisfaction (Screpanti & Zamagni 1995, p. 95). John Stuart Mill negates this by saying that a human being may also get pleasure/satisfaction by joining or participating in someone else’s happiness (Screpanti & Zamagni 1995, p.95). Simply put, pleasure do es not only result from one’s own interest but also from what humankind and harmony is experiencing (Screpanti & Zamagni 1995, p. 95). Last but not least, John Stuart Mill declines the idea of Jeremy Bentham, which reiterates that the individual is the only one capable of judging his or her own interest (Screpanti & Zamagni 1995, p. 95). John Stuart Mill negates this by saying that there are several instances wherein a person needs the intervention/meddling of the government for his own good (Screpanti & Zamagni 1995, p.95). For example, the government should intervene if the issue is with regards to education, employment, social issues like poverty etcetera, since a person is not automatically the best judge of his or her interests as proven by the examples aforementioned (Screpanti & Zamagni 1995, p. 95). The More Plausible Utilitarianism Now that we have seen how Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill define utilitarianism, it is now time to scrutinize what is more plausible, utilitarianism according to Jeremy Bentham or utilitarianism according to John Stuart Mill?If we alter their definition slightly, say, what is functional is high-quality and accordingly the principled value of conduct is â€Å"determined by the utility of its results† and that the utilitarian tradition sees that the ultimate purpose of honorable action is to reach the â€Å"greatest happiness for the greatest number† (Screpanti & Zamagni 1995, p. 95). If the aforementioned is to become a general rule for our laws then the â€Å"greatest happiness for the greatest number† will certainly be reached (Screpanti & Zamagni 1995, p.95). At this point, we cannot still pinpoint what is more plausible since both Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill upholds that concept. I believe that John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism is more plausible than that of Jeremy Bentham’s because of the following reasons: First of all, the premise of Jeremy Bentham that â€Å"plea sure, happiness, goodness, benefit, advantage, etcetera† are terms that equate to one another is a little too vague (Germino 1972, pp. 235 – 236).It is a little confusing to utilize every term he has given interchangeably; it is as if all these terms have the same weight in terms of magnitude and excellence/superiority (Germino 1972, pp. 235 – 236). Second, Jeremy Bentham’s argument â€Å"it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong† of human action in every situation, and in particular when governmental action is called for may lead to an unnecessary abuse on the part of the government (Germino 1972, pp. 235 – 236).For me, this has flaws since it may be used to make it appear that there is always a need for the government; these parts of his idea should have certain restrictions, for instance, it should be added that, the government may intervene, however, the consent of the populace also should be taken into consideration (Germino 1972, pp. 235 – 236). Finally, Jeremy Bentham’s thinking with regards to an individual’s motivations for humans to act can all be reduced to one’s own interest and to his own exploration for the utmost satisfaction (Screpanti & Zamagni 1995, p. 95).To me, it is a little bizarre since he is like undermining the capabilities of individuals to think of ways on how to make himself attain pleasure (Screpanti & Zamagni 1995, p. 95). References Bentham, J. 1948, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Blackwell, Oxford. Ebenstein, W. and Ebenstein, A. 1991, Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the President. Harcourt Brace, Forth Worth. Germino, D. 1972, Machiavelli to Marx: Modern Western Political Thought. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Screpanti, E. & Zamagni, S. 1995, An Outline of the History of Economic Thought. Clarendon Press, Oxford.