Thursday, January 10, 2013
Who got it right-- Bentham or Mill?
Through the course of reading the utilitarian ideas of Bentham and Mill, an interesting question comes to mind. It is clear that Bentham is focused on the quantity of pleasures attained while Mill focuses on the quality of pleasure. Although Mill's stance may seem most appealing, consider a situation in which a man disregards activities that will have a pleasurable outcome because he sees the activities as not being of good quality. So, rather and have any pleasure for quite some time, the man finally finds an activity which he deems quality enough to purse. This same man then looks for more pleasure of equal or greater quality than his last. It is possible that he never finds it again. To put this example into question form, is one pleasure of good quality worth waiting for and skipping other pleasures of lesser quality?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you have a great question, Joey, and a good way to think about the similarities between the authors Bentham and Mill.
ReplyDeleteI think an important question to ask is whether or not an action has to be taken to garner utility. In the complex of his calculus, it might be prudent to remember economic theory pertaining to opportunity costs.
An avenue of action might garner a particular score (i.e. 7) in Bentham's utilitarian consideration, while another garners a lower core (i.e. 5). But in pursuit of a seven, more effort might be required. In the abstract, an action that incur more pleasure might also require more pain.
I think that, at its heart, this is the quandary that Mill is trying to address when he addends his suggestion to Bentham.
In the context of opportunity costs, though, the benefits of one course of action cost you the benefits of another. and so, in pursuing a the previously mentioned 7 course of action, you lose the potential to pursue the 5 course of action.
It might be the case that not taking a choice on the 7,5 question i mentioned doesn't generate any specific pleasure but avoids the pain of a lost option long enough that a person doesn't take any action in that situation.
@Dave: I think Benthan can handle what you're describing as an opportunity cost problem with his idea of pure and mixed pleasures. A pure pleasure would be one that was entirely independent of pain. A mixed pleasure would be one that necessarily came with some pain. A thorough-going calculus would debase mixed pleasures.
ReplyDelete@Joey: You seem to be inclining toward the idea that the great is the enemy of the good. Interesting stuff. I wonder how others of you think Bentham or Mill might deal with this problem.
ReplyDeleteYea, I know one thing... I want to maximize the pleasures that I participate in no matter how small or large. Quantity over quality for me. I guess I would follow an Epicurean sort of existence. I do not think the search and the anticipation leading up to my carefully sought out pleasures would give me some sort of extra joy. I happen to particularly like the 7 things that judge pleasure. Like we mentioned in class, it might be ridiculous to observe this chart for every decision but I think i can stick to looking for extent, and certainty and live under Benthams schedule pretty good.
ReplyDeleteFor me at least, I believe that I would value quality over quantity, insomuch as the quality is great and of the higher pleasures. I would tend towards an Aristotelian point of view with the eudaimonia, or human flourishing as the ultimate goal, the greater good. By pursuing said higher pleasures, i.e. those which attend to my higher faculties of intellect and knowledge, of indeed truth itself, I will feel more "happy" in an Aristotelian sense. To answer Joey's question, I would rather have one pleasure of great quality than have many lesser pleasures of lesser quality.
ReplyDeleteJoey, I think that you might be over-thinking the quality aspect of Mill's philosophy. Bentham mainly seems to be proffering the belief that you should act in accordance with what will provide the maximum amount of happiness for a given situation, while Mill seems to think that you should act in accordance with what will provide the greatest quality of happiness, as a mass quantity of "low grade" happiness will likely prove unsatisfactory.
ReplyDeleteI think it's more important to orient yourself to do longer lasting pleasures because they will in the end lead to longer satisfaction and happiness. Choosing to only execute short-lived pleasures will only leave the individual wanting to obtain that short-lived euphoria or satisfaction more and more.
ReplyDelete