Ethics Utilitarianism Essay

a.) justify the main differences between the utilitarianism of Bentham and that of hoagie. Utilitarianism is an estimable possible fill that looks at the concept of utility, or the usefulness of operationions. Two of the most noteworthy Utilitarians were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart sub Bentham was the first to chisel in the surmisal, and his involves were more(prenominal) similar to that of Act Utilitarianism. mill on the other hand differed in his views, and his intention was to improve the hypothesis, and his melodic themes were closer to that of dominion Utilitarianism and swot was all overly the ane to bullion the name of the possibility. Although it is the same theory, the 2 philosophers had two divergent concepts of the best advance to Utilitarianism. angiotensin converting enzyme of the main differences between the two philosophers view of utility is their idea of the intrinsic skillful. For Bentham, the truth of actions is measured by the bar of recreation they father. For him, two things were the most important, the pursuit of pleasance and the absence of pain, and so gaiety is sport without pain.Bentham produced his hedonic calculus to calculate the beat of recreation produced by actions, which includes categories such as measuring the intensity, duration, and purity of pleasance to twist out the best actions to shell out. This is because Bentham was a heathen he notion the best right smart to live life is the most pleasurable modality. Although he never specifically tell himself, it is thought that he would have pet Act Utilitarianism, which looks at idiosyncratic acts, and the come in of sport they generate, in each situation. This differs from tarry in that he thought the chastity of actions is based on the amount of pleasure they produce. The practice of interest a detect creates blessedness, alternatively than looking at either separate act it is thought that he was closer to a Rule Util itarian, which involves following rules to create greater pleasure. Furthermore, Benthams Utilitarianism is over much(prenominal) more focussed on the individual.The individual judges each act by its utility, and the amount of pleasure it will produce as it is nigh the quantity of pleasure, for Bentham, which decides which action should be taken. The motivation is for self-interest, which means that a good deal justice can be ignored, as the focus is not on the wider public, which is antithetic from mess abouts turn up. swots court involves looking at the ecstasy of the participation, so justice is addressed, and well-being has finale importance. To make it more universal he said that each desires their get happiness, so they should estimate at it, and furthermore eachone ought to set for the happiness for everyone else too, making sympathy the motive(prenominal) for doing an action. Both approaches argon consequentialist, just for Mill, an honest act is one w here the consequences favour the happiness and wellbeing of all. His approach also looks at the quality of the activities as well, arguing that original things can be rated as high and overthrow pleasures.He said that food, ride and drink are of the lower category, whereas poetry, opera house and fine art and the like are of the higher(prenominal) pleasures, and that we should strive for pleasure of bump quality, of a more high-class lifestyle, as they are of more value. Whereas Bentham uses the example of a game of push-pin (a childrens game) gives the same amount of pleasure as a good daybook, Mill argues over against that verbalism the quality of the pleasure is what is importance. Essentially, what makes an act ethical for Bentham is the amount of pleasure that is produced for the individual, and duration and intensity etc. For J.S. Mill, an act is ethical if it follows more set rules, how much happiness is produced on a bigger scale, and the quality of the pleasure, rat her than the quantity. b.) Mills Utilitarianism is superior in every direction to the Utilitarianism of Bentham.Discuss. Both Mill and Bentham wished to produce an ethical theory that created the most happiness, which is what they believed to be the initiation for justice, and the best way of living. However, since they saw the way to achieve this happiness in different light, they had different approaches to the theory, meaning that one approach will be considered superior to the other. In my opinion, it is true that Mills approach is superior to Benthams, although not in every way. Firstly, it must be considered that it is not genuine which type of Utilitarianism each philosopher preferred. Generally it is thought that Bentham took the Act approach, and Mill the Rule approach, even out so neither put themselves in whatever of the categories, so it is therefore debatable. It is evident that two do not stick whole to the respective approaches as an example, Mill was know to write, Actions are right in correspondence as they tend to promote happiness, which implies a preference to Act Utilitarianism, although others salvage think that he may even have been a virtue ethicist.For the rice beer of this writing though, I will reason each philosopher to their assumed approach. John Stuart Mill was very familiar with Jeremy Bentham in person, as he was Benthams godson, and it is evident how this race affected his view on ethics. Mill attempted to improve Benthams theory, this concept of utility, which Mill coined Utilitarianism. However, his whole idea of the superior good for the greatest human body was accentuated by Mill when he made it more focussed on the community. As he thought more that happiness should be the standard of utility, not the self-centred pleasure. This improves the theory, as otherwise everybody will be counseling on themselves, and in many situations the pleasure of one person may exhaust the happiness of many. I think it is also more appropriate inside the theory as, if one looks out for the community, it seems more seeming that the greatest good for the greatest number will be reached. Likewise, Mills idea of happiness being about the quality, not the quantity of pleasure, is to an extent better.The higher pleasures taking preference over the lower kinds of pleasures seem to fit with the quality of life, knowledge and so forth. However, there is a danger that this idea quickly becomes snobbish, and puts the higher classes supra those who would prefer rap music over opera. I suppose that this could make Mills approach superior, but in the way that is arrogant and conceited, rather than the definition of superior meaning improved. This shows how the theory is counter-intuitive in some areas in how the community has importance, and not just the individual and heretofore Mill still argues that the quality of pleasure takes precedence over the quantity, which seems to contradict the idea of community, and involve multiple classes. Another detrimental side of Mills theory is that he makes a jump with his universalisability ideas.He makes an inductive leap in saying that just because one person desires their own happiness they will naturally aim for the happiness of everyone else. John Rawls was known for criticising Mill and how it is not ethical to assume that one person would do something for a group, and how heap can be used a means to an end because of that. Theoretically it is a suitable idea, that everyone would look out for the happiness for everyone else, but in practice it is not logical, he is separating morality and motive. An alternative approach to Utilitarianism would be that of Henry Sidgwick. In his book The method of Ethics he explained how he was concerned with justice in society.Although he was an Act Utilitarian like Bentham, his approach was similar to Mills, in that the consequences take into account the welfare of the people. This is an improvement ag ain on Benthams ethics as justice and welfare have importance over the selfish desires of individuals, which supports Mill and his transcendency over Benthams Utilitarianism. In conclusion, Mills Utilitarianism is superior to that of Benthams, in that it looks at the welfare of the people more, and even though it is snobbish in some areas where Benthams approach is better, overall Mills approach is more improved as it looks as the happiness of others.