Benthams utilitarian principle - Essay Example

? Utilitarianism How an individual behaves is oftentimes dictated by the society he or she is a part of. Anything that is acceptable to the society is what everyone thought of therefore, to be ethical. Several ethical principles have been associated to its proponents in the past. Based on these theories, societies, along with its member, behaves according to what they thought is applicable and appropriate. Happiness and pleasure against sorrow and pain controls every individual, thus behave according to the amount these opposing nature with the risk of the consequences that their action entails. This utilitarianism principle is what is thought to have governed the world as proposed by Jeremy Bentham. At present, Bentham’s (1781) utilitarian principle is considered as the most appropriate and the most modern among other ethical principles in the society. He regards pain and pleasure as the “sovereign masters” that control the world. Everyone’s action follows the principle of utility as each person may or may not identify one’s act as one that conforms to the society or not. Experiencing pain and pleasure allows humans to identify the things that they ought to do as well as what they shall do. Being able to identify the actions that are appropriate in the society allows individuals to identify what is right or moral. Furthermore, such actions that are seen to be good and beneficial to a large number of people in the community are then considered to be morally acceptable. On the other hand, when an action is seen to inflict pain and is not pleasing to a majority, it is therefore disapproved and regarded as an immoral act. This idea applies to actions that are considered to be “for the greater good.” The idea of conduct that brings about happiness to a greater number of people is called by others as the “universal hedonism” (Sidgwick, n.d.). Each individual desires happiness. An individual who seeks happiness therefore perform actions that would eventually bring him or her greater amounts of pleasure. As the individual deviates from experiencing pain, he or she should consequently take into consideration whether the actions would bring about unhappiness or pain to others. Otherwise, the actions that the person may be taking may be seen as unacceptable, thus it will be disapproved by the majority. Any conduct that that affects a greater number of people in the society should not be implemented and considered unjust. In a given circumstance though, where the conduct affects a small number of people negatively, the community should assume the responsibility of its adverse effects. (role of the government) Right is then associated by the feelings of pleasure, while wrong is associated with pain. These two sensations that every member of the society feels can be quantified, therefore, pleasure in its great amount is deemed best for humanity. Greater pain, on the other hand, is unacceptable in the society, and thus regarded as a violation of the laws set by man and the system that is implementing them. On the other hand, motives play an important role in identifying what is thought to be right and wrong for the community. The principle that is adverse of utility introduces the ideas of asceticism, and sympathy and apathy. Such instances when even an action that offers the least amount of happiness or pleasure may be approved by the community. This inverse utilitarian principle recognizes the value of the action even when it does not provide a greater amount of happiness on the condition that it is advantageous for a greater number of people. As Bentham (1781) pointed out, the difference in motives between hope and fear draws down to the same principle that is associated to asceticism. While hope may elicit anticipation for something that is good in the future, fear inhibits a person to do something immoral in order to avoid punishment in the future. Both feelings fall down to preventing the members of the society, no matter which group they belong to, from performing conducts that elicits pain or unhappiness. The principle on sympathy and antipathy is significant in identifying what is morally acceptable and unacceptable in the society. Nevertheless, this principle is not deemed appropriate to be used as a system in the government as it does not seek any further for its judgment is invalid since it is based solely on the person’s subjective discernment. In effect, the degree of punishment is identified by how much the individual thought is appropriate for the conduct he or she has determined to be a non-conformity to the society, as well as to his or her beliefs. It is also considered invalid for it does not require a reason to justify the act aside from the personal sentiments of the individual disapproving the conduct. Greatness and mediocrity of pain and pleasure can be measured according to Bentham (1781). In order to quantify them, they may be measured according to intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, and propinquity or remoteness. Intensity may be assigned a value according to how strong the pain or pleasure the individual feels. The length of time that the pain or pleasure is felt is measured by duration, while certainty measures how definite they are. Propinquity is measured according to the immediacy of these two controlling nature of humans. He also added fecundity and purity to help quantify the value of pain and pleasure, particularly in its ability to attract similar or opposite circumstances. Fecundity is measure how many more actions that would bring similar pleasures or pains would the action entail. Purity on the other hand measures the chances that the action may entail n opposite sensation (Zunjic, n.d.). Furthermore, the number of individuals affected by these sensations is also measured through what he identifies as extent. Bentham (1781) identified pains and pleasure as either simple or complex. Simple pleasures are those that man cannot tolerate. These simple pleasures include the pleasures of sense, wealth, skill, amity, good name, power, piety, benevolence, malevolence, memory, imagination, expectation, dependent on association, and relief. Equally, simple pains are also made up of the same kinds, except for relief. Pain and pleasure may also result from the physical, political, moral and religious sanctions. Punishment and reward is an essential part of utilitarianism in order to promote individual happiness, as well as the happiness of the society. The government plays an important role in upholding happiness in the community in order to secure the every member of the community to be free from pain. The degree of punishment and reward then depends on the extent of pain and pleasure that the act resulted into. Actions always cause a consequence, good or bad. Based on the consequences of the act, a person’s intention of doing such may be judged according to the results of the action as willed by the person, or the understanding of the consequences or circumstances that comes along with it yet ignoring them. Relative to this situation, Bentham (1781) identified three different types of consciousness – consciousness, unconsciousness, and false consciousness. Consciousness is when the person is aware of the circumstances of his actions before he or she performs them. When a person is not aware of such consequences that entail his actions before he acted it out, it is therefore identified as unconsciousness. Conversely, when a conscious person falsely believes the impossible consequences of his actions, this is considered false consciousness. Therefore, when invoking punishment, consciousness should be considered, along with the act itself, the circumstances in which it is done, and the intentionality that may have accompanied it. Motives or intentions of doing such acts must be identified and examined for the tendency for the act to be punished depends as well on the reason that resulted to formulating such motive and the personal state at which that reason resulted to. An action may be considered either intentional or unintentional. Actions may be intentional without the consequences. Equally, consequences may be a result of an act is unintentional. Works Cited: Zunjic, Bob. An Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Legislation (1789) An Outline. No Date. Web. 5 June 2013. _________. Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. No Date. Web. 5 June 2013 Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Legislation. 1781. Web. 5 June 2013 Read More