Ethics Utilitarianism Essay

a.) Explain the main differences between the utilitarianism of Bentham and that of pulverisation. usefulism is an estimable hypothesis that looks at the concept of utility, or the profit of processs. Two of the most(prenominal) famous Utilitarians were Jeremy Bentham and John Stu nontextual matter move Bentham was the first to introduce the theory, and his witnesss were much similar to that of come Utilitarianism. milling machinery on the other hand differed in his views, and his intention was to improve the theory, and his cerebrations were closer to that of Rule Utilitarianism and zep was also the one to coin the name of the theory. Although it is the homogeneous theory, the two philosophers had two different concepts of the exceed woo to Utilitarianism. One of the main differences between the two philosophers view of utility is their idea of the intrinsic good. For Bentham, the virtue of momentions is thrifty by the descend of frolic they produce. For him, two things were the most important, the pursuit of joyfulness and the absence of pain, and so delight is pleasure with expose pain.Bentham produced his hedonic calculus to calculate the amount of pleasure produced by actions, which includes categories such as measuring cling the intensity, duration, and purity of pleasure to work out the topper actions to take. This is because Bentham was a hedonist he ruling the best focus to live life is the most congenial steering. Although he never specifically said himself, it is survey that he would have likered Act Utilitarianism, which looks at individual acts, and the amount of pleasure they generate, in apiece situation. This differs from grinder in that he impression the goodness of actions is based on the amount of felicity they produce. The coiffe of fount by side(p) a rule creates happiness, preferably than look at every separate act it is thought that he was closer to a Rule Utilitarian, which involves following ru les to create greater happiness. Furtherto a greater extent, Benthams Utilitarianism is much more focussed on the individual.The individual judges separately act by its utility, and the amount of pleasure it allow for produce as it is about the quantity of pleasure, for Bentham, which decides which action should be taken. The motivation is for self-interest, which means that often jurist can be ignored, as the focus is non on the wider public, which is different from hoagies lift. Mills glide path involves looking at the happiness of the community, so plainlyice is addressed, and well-being has utmost importance. To reserve it moreuniversal he said that distributively desires their proclaim happiness, so they should aim at it, and furthermore everyone ought to aim for the happiness for everyone else too, making sympathy the need for doing an action. Both approaches are consequentialist, but for Mill, an ethical act is one where the consequences favour the happiness and w ellbeing of all. His approach also looks at the note of the activities as well, parameter that certain things can be rated as high and lower pleasures.He said that food, sex and tipsiness are of the lower category, whereas poetry, opera and fine art and the like are of the higher pleasures, and that we should strive for pleasure of better timbre, of a more high-class lifestyle, as they are of more value. Whereas Bentham uses the example of a crippled of push-pin (a childrens game) gives the same amount of pleasure as a good obtain, Mill argues once against that saying the forest 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 larger scale, and the quality of the pleasure, rather than the quantity. b.) Mills Utilitarianism is victor in every way 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 basis for justness, 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 go away be considered superior to the other. In my opinion, it is unfeigned that Mills approach is superior to Benthams, although not in every way. Firstly, it must be considered that it is not certain which type of Utilitarianism individually philosopher preferred. Generally it is thought that Bentham took the Act approach, and Mill the Rule approach, however uncomplete put themselves in any of the categories, so it is whence debatable. It is lucid that both do not stick completely to the respective approaches as an example, Mill was know to write, Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happin ess, which implies a orientation course to Act Utilitarianism, although others still think that he whitethorn even have been a virtue ethicist.For the interestingness of this writing though, I will categorise each philosopher to their assumed approach. John Stuart Mill was very old(prenominal)with Jeremy Bentham in person, as he was Benthams godson, and it is evident how this relationship 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 great good for the great number was accentuated by Mill when he make it more focussed on the community. As he thought more that happiness should be the regular of utility, not the self-centred pleasure. This improves the theory, as otherwise everybody will be focussing on themselves, and in some situations the pleasure of one person may rotate the happiness of many. I think it is also more appropriate inside the theory as, if one l ooks out for the community, it seems more likely 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 penchant over the lower kinds of pleasures seem to fit with the quality of life, education and so forth. However, there is a jeopardy that this idea quickly becomes cliquish, and puts the higher classes above those who would prefer rap music over opera. I recall that this could make Mills approach superior, but in the way that is arrogant and conceited, rather than the definition of superior meaning modify. This shows how the theory is counter-intuitive in some areas in how the community has importance, and not just the individual and yet 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 negative side of Mills t heory 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 people 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 substitute approach to Utilitarianism would be that of Henry Sidgwick. In his book The method of Ethics he explained how he was touch on with justice in society.Although he was an Act Utilitarian like Bentham, his approach was similar to Mills, in thatthe consequences take into account the welfare of the people. This is an improvement again on Benthams ethics as justice and welfare have importance over the egoistic desires of individuals, which supports Mill and his superiority 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.