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.