Anda di halaman 1dari 9
 
International
 
 Journal
 
of
 
Philosophy
 
Study
 
(IJPS),
 
Volume
 
4,
 
2016
 
www.seipub.org/ijps
 
doi:
 
10.14355/ijps.2016.04.003
 
13
 
Mill’s
 
Critique
 
of
 
Bentham’s
 
Utilitarianism
 
Abdul
 
Latif
 
Mondal
 
Research
 
Scholar,
 
Department
 
of
 
Philosophy,
 
Aligarh
 
Muslim
 
University,
 
Aligarh,
 
India
 
Email:
 
latif09pyb12@gmail.com
 
 Abstract 
 
Mill
ʹ
s
 
famous
 
essay
 ʺ
Utilitarianism
ʺ
to
 
 begin
 
with
 
an
 
almost
 
is
 
true
 
of
 
the
 
hedonism
 
of
 
Bentham.
 
First
 
and
 
most
 
important,
 
it
 
is
 
Mill
ʹ
s
 
unwillingness
 
to
 
accept
 
the
 
Bentham
ʹ
s
 
view
 
holding
 
that
 
all
 
pleasures
 
are
 
qualitatively
 
on
 
a
 
par.
 
On
 
the
 
contrary,
 
Mill
 
argues,
 
we
 
must
 
differentiate
 
 between
 ʹ
higher
 
and
 
lower
ʹ
pleasure.
 
Utilitarianism,
 
the
 
ethical
 
doctrine
 
that
 
the
 
good
 
of
 
any
 
action
 
is
 
tested
 
 by
 
its
 
contribution
 
to
 
the
 
results,
 
especially
 
human
 
happiness.
 
It
 
should
 
 be
 
focused
 
on
 
what
 
 brings
 
happiness
 
to
 
the
 
greatest
 
number.
 
It
 
tries
 
to
 
prove
 
rational
 
and
 
scientific
 
foundation
 
for
 
morality.
 
Rational
 
 based
 
on
 
calculation,
 
and
 
scientific
 
is
 
 based
 
on
 
observation.
 
Bentham
 
thinks
 
an
 
action
 
is
 
right
 
if
 
it
 
produces
 
the
 
greatest
 
amount
 
of
 
pleasure
 
rather
 
than
 
pain.
 
Mill
 
thinks
 
an
 
action,
 
if
 
only
 
it
 
conforms
 
to
 
generally
 
accepted
 
rules,
 
creates
 
most
 
pleasure
 
for
 
most
 
people.
 
Bentham
 
considers
 
quantitative
 
pleasure,
 
and
 
Mill
 
considers
 
qualitative
 
pleasure,
 
not
 
 just
 
quantitative
 
pleasure.
 
Keywords
 
Bentham’s
 
Utilitarianism,
 
 Mill’s
 
Utilitarianism,
 
Qualitative,
 
Quantitative
 
 Approach
 
Introduction
 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.”
1
 
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.”
2
 
 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.
 
But
 
Sdgwick
 
rejects
 
psychological
 
hedonism
 
and
 
advocates
 
ethical
 
hedonism.
 
According
 
to
 
him,
 
pleasure
 
is
 
the
 
reasonable
 
object
 
of
 
our
 
desire.
 
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.
 
He
 
says,
 
“Nature
 
has
 
placed
 
man
 
 
www.seipub.org/ijps
 
International
 
 Journal
 
of
 
Philosophy
 
Study
 
(IJPS),
 
Volume
 
4,
 
2016
 
14
 
under
 
the
 
empire
 
of
 
pleasure
 
and
 
pain.
 
We
 
owe
 
to
 
them
 
all
 
our
 
ideas;
 
we
 
refer
 
to
 
them
 
all
 
our
 
 judgments
 
and
 
all
 
the
 
determination
 
of
 
our
 
life.
 
His
 
object
 
is
 
to
 
seek
 
pleasure
 
and
 
shun
 
pain.
 
The
 
principle
 
of
 
utility
 
subjects
 
everything
 
to
 
these
 
two
 
motives.
 
Nature
 
has
 
placed
 
mankind
 
under
 
the
 
governance
 
of
 
two
 
sovereign
 
masters,
 
pain
 
and
 
pleasure.”
3
 
“It
 
is
 
for
 
them
 
alone
 
to
 
point
 
what
 
we
 
ought
 
to
 
do
 
as
 
well
 
as
 
to
 
determine
 
what
 
we
 
shall
 
do.”
4
 
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
 
ness
 
and
 
wrongness
 
stand
 
for
 
painfulness.
 
Gross
 
Utilitarianism
 
Bentham’s
 
utilitarianism
 
may
 
 be
 
called
 
gross
 
or
 
sensualistic
 
or
 
quantitative,
 
 because
 
he
 
does
 
not
 
hold
 
qualitative
 
differences
 
among
 
pleasure.
 
1)
 
 Altruism
 
Bentham’s
 
hedonism
 
is
 
altruistic,
 
 because
 
he
 
takes
 
into
 
account
 
of
 
the
 
extent
 
of
 
pleasure,
 
i.e.
 
the
 
number
 
of
 
persons
 
affected
 
 by
 
it.
 
If
 
a
 
pleasure
 
is
 
shared
 
 by
 
many
 
persons,
 
it
 
has
 
a
 
great
 
extent
 
and
 
as
 
such
 
it
 
is
 
to
 
 be
 
preferred
 
to
 
a
 
pleasure
 
that
 
can
 
 be
 
enjoyed
 
 by
 
only
 
one
 
person.
 
Thus
 
Bentham
 
 by
 
introducing
 
“extent”
 
as
 
a
 
dimension
 
of
 
pleasure
 
introduces
 
more
 
pleasure
 
for
 
more
 
people
 
as
 
the
 
moral
 
standard.
 
2)
 
Egoism
 
Although
 
Bentham
 
is
 
an
 
advocate
 
of
 
altruistic
 
hedonism,
 
he
 
clearly
 
recognizes
 
the
 
natural
 
egoism
 
of
 
man.
 
He
 
says
 
“To
 
obtain
 
the
 
greatest
 
portion
 
of
 
happiness
 
of
 
himself
 
is
 
the
 
object
 
of
 
every
 
rational
 
 being.
 
Every
 
man
 
is
 
nearer
 
of
 
himself
 
than
 
he
 
can
 
 be
 
to
 
any
 
other
 
man
 
and
 
no
 
other
 
man
 
can
 
weigh
 
for
 
him
 
his
 
pleasure
 
and
 
pains.
 
He
 
himself
 
must
 
necessarily
 
 be
 
his
 
own
 
concern.
 
His
 
interest
 
must,
 
to
 
himself
 
 be
 
the
 
primary
 
interest.”
5
 
3)
 
 Moral
 
Sanctions
 
If
 
we
 
look
 
at
 
Bentham’s
 
account
 
from
 
egoism
 
to
 
altruism,
 
he
 
had
 
seen
 
to
 
have
 
given
 
four
 
external
 
sanctions:
 
physical
 
or
 
natural
 
sanction,
 
political
 
sanction,
 
social
 
sanction,
 
and
 
religious
 
sanction.
 
They
 
naturally
 
operate
 
 by
 
the
 
pleasure
 
or
 
pain,
 
the
 
state,
 
the
 
society
 
and
 
god.
 
 John
 
Stuart 
 
 Mill
 
John
 
Stuart
 
Mill
 
(1806
1879),
 
the
 
second
 
utilitarian
 
educated
 
at
 
home
 
 by
 
his
 
father,
 
is
 
a
 
prominent
 
economist
 
and
 
member
 
of
 
the
 
philosophical
 
radicals.
 
In
 
fact,
 
they
 
used
 
young
 
Mill
 
as
 
a
 
kind
 
of
 
guinea
 
pig
 
on
 
whom
 
they
 
could
 
try
 
out
 
some
 
of
 
their
 
novel
 
pedagogical
 
theories.
 
The
 
influence
 
of
 
Bentham
 
is
 
clearly
 
apparent
 
 both
 
in
 
the
 
career
 
and
 
in
 
the
 
thought
 
of
 
Mill.
 
Throughout
 
his
 
life,
 
Mill
 
devoted
 
himself
 
to
 
programs
 
for
 
social
 
reform,
 
carrying
 
on
 
the
 
tradition
 
of
 
the
 
philosophical
 
radicals.
 
His
 
essay
 
on
 
Liberty
 
is
 
a
 
classic
 
defence
 
of
 
the
 
rights
 
of
 
the
 
individual
 
against
 
society.
 
Mill,
 
like
 
Bentham,
 
found
 
in
 
hedonistic
 
ethics
 
a
 
theoretical
 
 justification
 
for
 
his
 
political
 
views
 
and
 
practices.
 
However,
 
his
 
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
 
Mill’s
 
unwillingness
 
to
 
accept
 
the
 
Bentham’s
 
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”
6
.
 
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
 
 
International
 
 Journal
 
of
 
Philosophy
 
Study
 
(IJPS),
 
Volume
 
4,
 
2016
 
www.seipub.org/ijps
 
15
 
disagrees
 
with
 
Epicurus
 
and
 
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.
 
We
 
may
 
summarize
 
Mill’s
 
account
 
of
 
utilitarianism
 
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.
 
Utilitarianism
 
is
 
a
 
teleological
 
theory,
 
which
 
stands
 
for
 
the
 
more
 
pleasure
 
for
 
more
 
people.
 
In
 
Bentham’s
 
phrase,
 
one
 
should
 
seek
 
“the
 
greatest
 
happiness
 
of
 
the
 
greatest
 
number”.
 
By
 
contrast,
 
ethical
 
egoism
 
is
 
a
 
teleological
 
theory
 
where
 
pleasure
 
is
 
the
 
only
 
thing
 
having
 
intrinsic
 
value.
 
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.
 
1)
 
 Act 
 
Utilitarianism
 
First,
 
there
 
is
 
act
 
utilitarianism.
 
It
 
holds
 
that
 
in
 
general
 
or
 
at
 
least,
 
where
 
it
 
is
 
practicable,
 
one
 
is
 
to
 
tell
 
what
 
is
 
right
 
or
 
obligatory
 
 by
 
appealing
 
directly
 
to
 
the
 
principle
 
of
 
utility.
 
In
 
other
 
words,
 
what
 
produces
 
the
 
greatest
 
 balance
 
of
 
good
 
over
 
evil
 
in
 
the
 
universe?
 
It
 
is
 
a
 
form
 
of
 
utilitarianism
 
associated
 
with
 
Bentham
 
that
 
treats
 
each
 
moral
 
situation
 
as
 
unique
 
and
 
each
 
‘act’
 
is
 
deemed
 
to
 
 be
 
right
 
or
 
wrong
 
 based
 
on
 
the
 
consequences
 
it
 
produces.
 
One
 
must
 
ask
 
“what
 
effect
 
 by
 
doing
 
this
 
act
 
in
 
this
 
situation
 
will
 
have
 
on
 
the
 
general
 
 balance
 
of
 
good
 
over
 
evil”
 
not
 
“what
 
effect
 
everyone’s
 
doing
 
this
 
kind
 
of
 
act
 
in
 
this
 
kind
 
of
 
situation
 
will
 
have
 
on
 
the
 
general
 
 balance
 
of
 
good
 
over
 
evil.”
7
 
Generalizations
 
like
 
“Telling
 
the
 
truth
 
is
 
probably
 
always
 
for
 
the
 
greatest
 
general
 
good”,
 
or
 
“Telling
 
the
 
truth
 
is
 
generally
 
for
 
the
 
greatest
 
general
 
good.”
8
 
may
 
 be
 
useful
 
as
 
guides
 
 based
 
on
 
the
 
past
 
experience,
 
 but
 
the
 
question
 
is
 
that
 
telling
 
the
 
truth
 
in
 
his
 
case
 
is
 
for
 
the
 
greatest
 
good
 
or
 
not.
 
2)
 
General
 
Utilitarianism
 
The
 
second
 
kind
 
of
 
utilitarianism
 
is
 
the
 
general
 
utilitarianism.
 
It
 
holds
 
that
 
one
 
is
 
not
 
to
 
ask
 
in
 
each
 
situation
 
which
 
action
 
has
 
the
 
 best
 
consequences,
 
 but
 
it
 
does
 
not
 
talk
 
about
 
rules.
 
According
 
to
 
general
 
utilitarianism,
 
one
 
is
 
not
 
to
 
ask
 
“what
 
will
 
happen
 
if
 
I
 
do
 
so
 
and
 
so
 
in
 
this
 
case?”
 
or
 
“what
 
would
 
happen
 
if
 
everyone
 
were
 
to
 
do
 
so
 
and
 
so
 
in
 
such
 
cases?”
9
 
The
 
idea
 
 behind
 
general
 
utilitarianism
 
is
 
that
 
if
 
something
 
is
 
right
 
for
 
one
 
person
 
to
 
do
 
in
 
a
 
certain
 
situation,
 
then
 
it
 
is
 
also
 
right
 
for
 
anyone
 
else
 
who
 
is
 
similarly
 
situated
 
to
 
do,
 
and
 
hence
 
that
 
one
 
cannot
 
ask
 
simply
 
what
 
effects
 
one’s
 
proposed
 
action
 
will
 
have
 
in
 
a
 
particular
 
case.
 
One
 
must
 
rather
 
ask
 
what
 
the
 
consequences
 
would
 
 be
 
if
 
everyone
 
were
 
to
 
act
 
likewise
 
in
 
such
 
cases.
 
This
 
view
 
has
 
 been
 
 best
 
stated
 
 by
 
M.G.
 
Siegen?
 
The
 
General
 
utilitarian’s
 
final
 
answer
 
must
 
 be
 
an
 
appeal
 
to
 
the
 
principle
 
that
 
if
 
an
 
action
 
is
 
right
 
for
 
me
 
to
 
do
 
in
 
my
 
situation,
 
then
 
it
 
is
 
right
 
for
 
everyone
 
to
 
do
 
who
 
is
 
similarly
 
situated
 
in
 
relevant
 
respects.
 
3)
 
Rule
 
Utilitarianism
 
It
 
is
 
a
 
rather
 
different
 
view
 
of
 
utilitarianism
 
 based
 
on
 
general
 
principles
 
or
 
rules
 
of
 
 behaviour.
 
It
 
is
 
a
 
view
 
associated
 
with
 
 J.S.
 
Mill.
 
Rules
 
like
 
‘respect
 
the
 
property
 
of
 
others’
 
or
 
‘do
 
not’
 
steal
 
would
 
help
 
to
 
keep
 
the
 
principle
 
of
 
the
 
greatest
 
happiness
 
for
 
the
 
greatest
 
number.’
 
So
 
they
 
should
 
 be
 
obeyed.
 
The
 
act
 
of
 
utilitarianism
 
may
 
allow
 
rules
 
to
 
 be
 
used,
 
 but
 
if
 
he
 
does,
 
he
 
must
 
conceive
 
of
 
a
 
rule
 
like
 
“Tell
 
the
 
Truth”
 
as
 
follows:
 
“Telling
 
the
 
truth
 
is
 
generally
 
for
 
the
 
greatest
 
good.”
10
 
By
 
contrast,
 
the
 
rule
 
must
 
conceive
 
of
 
it
 
thus:
 
“our
 
always
 
telling
 
the
 
truth
 
is
 
for
 
greatest
 
good”
 
or
 
thus
 
“It
 
is
 
for
 
the
 
greatest
 
good
 
if
 
we
 
always
 
tell
 
the
 
truth.”
11
 
This
 
means
 
that
 

Puaskan Keingintahuan Anda

Segala yang ingin Anda baca.
Kapan pun. Di mana pun. Perangkat apa pun.
Tanpa Komitmen. Batalkan kapan saja.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505