Utilitarianism Theory by Bentham and Mill (Essay Example)

📌Category: Philosophical Theories, Philosophy
📌Words: 1278
📌Pages: 5
📌Published: 31 May 2022

Utilitarianism was popularized and conceived by Bentham, later being expanded on by Mill, who took a different approach to the belief. The structure of utilitarianism is built along the basis that the consequence determines if an action is considered correct. The original way of thinking was formulated around the idea that, “Right actions are those that result in greater overall well-being (or utility) for the people involved than any other possible outcome” (Vaughn 297). Depending on the type of utilitarian they are, they react to different scenarios through different means, causing outcomes to change with their perspective. The two philosophical thinkers, Bentham and Mill, each had different views on the topic. Although their ways of thinking collided, they both wanted happiness to be the end goal to a person. Nevertheless, the two were conflicted against each other, and their views clearly display this in the subject of the death penalty. Within this essay, I will be outlining Bentham and Mill's different views on utilitarianism, and how they would support or oppose the death penalty.

Within traditional utilitarianism, it was fixated on creating the maximum amount of happiness for a group of people. There is a duty to get this end result, as Vaughn writes on p297, regardless of what moral rules or principles might be in place. This implies that people that follow this certain belief will not take moral standards into account when decision making.  An example of this can be applied in the scenario: if I make a promise to you, and then act in a way to break that promise. People would say this act is considered wrong due to the fact that it is morally seen as a bad thing to lie. However, that moral standard is irrelevant to whether the act itself is right or wrong, as the utilitarian is only asserting the consequences of the act. They follow under the motto that, “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” (Vaughn 301). As long as an option maximizes happiness, it does not matter how it is split up. Based on these ideas, Betham constructed seval more ideas and principles adding onto what had already been associated with the philosophy. He asserted that happiness is, “one dimensional: it is pleasure, pure and simple, something that varies in the amount that an agent can experience” (Vaughn 299). This means that all happiness is the same, despite what form that it comes in. The only factor causing change within it is how much or how little a person might experience it within their lives. Based on this idea, Betham would assert that the amount of happiness gained from getting a good grade on a test and seeing a good friend would be the same, as they are incomparable, and are both just forms of getting the feeling of happiness or pleasure. A person might not always get a good grade or see their friend, leading this to be a component of when happiness might not be gained. The times that a person does get this feeling, could vary within their lifetime, but when the feeling is acquired it is the same every time. Along with his theory, a key component was that actions that lead to suffering are considered wrong. Bentham argued that punishment requires justification, as it is evil. Punishment itself is evil due to the fact that it inflicts pain. Betham created these ideas, while adding onto the original idea of utilitarianism, being a key component behind his opposition of the death penalty.

In the counteractiment of this belief, Mill asserted that, “..there are lower and higher pleasures- the lower inferior ones indulged in by gluutton and his ilk and the higher more satisfying ones found in experiences such as the search for knowledge and the appreciation of art and music” (Vaughn 300). As Betham saw happiness as a straightforward feeling, Mill assessed that there were several different levels or layers to it. The higher pleasures were seen as superior to the lower ones, resulting in different happiness levels, and almost being incomparable. Using Mill’s reasoning, a higher quality pleasure, such as learning new things and helping others, would be more valuable than a lower quality pleasure of an action, such as eating or drinking. To defend this argument Mill also states, “Of two pleasures, if there be one which all or almost all who experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure” (Vaughn 303). Likewise, in comparison to Bentham, he believed that utilitarians should prevent any action that would lead to suffering. Punishment that resulted in hurting another was not only viewed as wrong, but was wrong enough that Mill concluded that the state should intervene to prevent it from occurring again.

Using both philosopher’s reasonings above, the question arises if the death penalty would be supported or opposed by each of them. Using Betham’s philosophy, he could be seen as an act utilitarian, or someone that sees each situation as different while having no universal laws as defined by Vaughn on p297. Betham had a mathematical way of thinking about solutions to problems, and would often turn to equations to figure problems out. Using this reasoning, I believe that he would oppose the death penalty, as he would evaluate all the options. As universal laws would not come into effect here, keeping the criminal alive would ultimately benefit society and cause more happiness through his eyes. If killed, there is no way to repay society for the damage that was caused. Bentham would have put this situation into something such as a pro and con solution. The intensity of the death would be very strong, resulting in a maximum amount of pain for the person it is inflicted on. The reactions of others would also be important, as people would be happy that the prisoner is killed, it might go against other religions resulting in unhappiness. Purity would also be assessed, as an innocent person could be sentenced to death. Through his idea of one-dimensional happiness, both living and dying would not be seen as ideal, and would result in a minimal excess of happiness. With this in mind, seeing as both results are essentially the same, the right thing to do would be to keep the person alive and working. This way they could be of use for society, and would produce things that would indirectly result in the happiness of others. Due to these reasons, Bentham would be in opposition for the death penalty.  

As opposed to this solution for the death penalty, I suspect that Mill would defend capitol punishment, but would only apply it to extreme cases of aggeteted murder. To him, the punishment would be seen as something done to waver the society, and a punishable offense that the state would have to interfere on. To Mill, a short death of execution would be of more benefit than a life that would be gruesome and hard by being cut off from all other members of society, forced to work day and night, and given unstable living conditions. Based on his idea of levels of happiness, working for the rest of your life and living in these conditions would produce a lower quality of happiness than if the prisoner was to be executed. This choice would provide a deterrent, and would possibly prevent others from committing the same crimes if they learn what the offense is. Not only is it a deterrent, it would provide less suffering and pain to the offender and would bring lots of happiness to whomever the crime was committed against. As this option would serve as the least amount of suffering to the person and bring happiness to the offender as well as the offeded, this would be seen as the best option for Mill.

As utilitarianism is still being expanded and added onto to this day, Bentham and Mill’s ideas are still being viewed as advantageous sources of understanding. Each having their own thoughts built off of it, their goals were to maximize the happiness that could be achieved. As the death penalty is one of the many subjects that was up for debate, each utilitarian has their own way of approaching problems.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.