Explain the main features of the theory of Utilitarianism Essay

The potentialness of Utilitarianism takes its name from the Latin word Utilis, implication useful. It was first developed by Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher and legal theorist of the eighteenth century. Bentham sought to produce a unexampled and rational arise to incorruptity which would font the changing society of the industrial age. This was too the era of the French and Ameri brush off Revolutions, and of the Enlightenment, so orthodox morality was ch tot onlyyenged on umteen fronts.Utilitarianism may be regarded as a relativist, consequentialist and teleological dodging of ethics, prescribing no repair moral discovers and judging an action by its consequences or end result (Greek telos). Bentham argued that single should maximise happiness for the majority (the superlative faithful for the greatest number Francis Hutche boy), a view which is known as the returns Principle. Happiness was thus equated with moral goodness. This idea barely identifies Bentham as a psyc hological hedonist, since he regarded human beings as being primarily propel by di interpretation and the avoidance of pain.A contented society would be a good society. To bring reason and record to the field of ethics, Bentham then put onward-moving what he regarded as a scientific or empirical process for qualification moral decisions, known as the voluptuous calculus. This consisted of s nonetheless key criteria maven must consider when making a moral choice Intensity length Certainty Propinquity or distance (how close at hand pleasure falls) Fecundity (how likely pleasure is to be followed by to a greater extent pleasure) Purity accomplishment (how many people it affects).Later in the 19th century, Benthams God son John Stuart tarry modified his speculation. poor boy was a leading politician and philosopher of his day, advocating bow and liberal causes much(prenominal) as the e reference of women. He regarded Utilitarianism as an important only flawed approach t o ethics. While Bentham had regarded all pleasures as commensurate (they be all equal or equivalent), lallygag distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. higher(prenominal) pleasures would be those which engaged the mind (e. g. unison or poetry), but lower pleasures would be those which engaged merely the body (e. g.eating, sex). grind developed the idea of competent decide those who had experienced the full range of pleasures could severalise between what is higher and lower. A good society would be refined and inferential in its pleasures, and so loaf avoided the snap that Utilitarianism is a system of base gratification. an several(prenominal) otherwise(prenominal) key distinction between Bentham and Mill lies in the difference between displace and bump theories of Utilitarianism. Bentham proposed an symbolise Utilitarian approach, pith that he treated each case-by-case action separately, without any rules to guide the individual.Mill meanwhile proposed tha t one should make rules establish upon the consequences which tend to follow from certain actions (e. g. stealing tends to cause pain, so we should have a rule against stealing). So, notwithstanding advocating the same underlying idea (the promotion of happiness), we can travel to that Mill and Bentham arrived at two actually different approaches to morality, with Mill avoiding some of the more radical and controversial ideas put forward by Bentham. Evaluate the main strengths and weaknesses of the guess The strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism vary between different versions of the surmisal.The advantages of Act Utilitarianism are not the same as those of feel Mills panorama was very different from that of Bentham. Overall, however, the strengths of both forms are outweighed by their weaknesses. They are not convince as ethical systems, and some other approach to ethics is required. An advantage of Benthams Act Utilitarianism is that it considers the consequences a nd happiness which result from actions this seems a sensible approach to ethics which would get much support today. The possible action is likewise flexible and easy to apply it does not prescribe many hard rules and provides a simple method for decision making.The theory also enables tough decision making through its relativism (i. e. it would allow us to ease up individuals if it is of great benefit to society). The problem with Benthams theory however is that it is truly relativistic, so any conceivable action could be allowed (killing for the sake of pleasure, or ideology). It also enables the pathetic of the innocent under a majority, despite obvious injustice. It further allows cruel or sadistic pleasure, since Bentham regarded all pleasure as commensurate (equal), a point state by the philosopher Bernard Williams.Mills theory offers many advantages which get around the problems of Benthams Act Utilitarianism. By distinguishing between the quality of pleasures, Mill rule s out the possibility of sadism or evil pleasure (e. g. prison guards enjoying torment an innocent victim). Also, by offering Rule Utilitarianism, Mill is stating that certain actions are explicitly prohibited because they tend to promote pain. So, he would not allow torture, no effect how much it was enjoyed. However, Mills theory lacks the flexibility of Benthams, which means that sensible rule breaking is no longer possible (an objection pointed out by R. M. Hare). unrivalled could not tell white lies, even to protect others. There is a further weakness in Mills idea of different qualities of pleasure how can we judge what makes pleasure higher or lower? Surely this is a unverifiable matter, as taste varies from person to person. It energy also be argued that the concept of a competent judge is vague, since it is not terminate whether we can really identify much(prenominal) people in todays society. Overall, the theories put forward by Bentham and Mill fail to provide a con vincing or useful approach to ethics. On the one hand, Benthams views are strikingly relativistic, allowing any pleasure (even sadism).On the other hand, Mills Rule system lacks the flexibility to make sensible choices in difficult situations. It may be that some other and more modern version of the theory can overcome these problems, such as Welfare Utilitarianism (as supported by Peter Singer) or Two Rule Utilitarianism (as suggested by R. M. Hare). We could strike a equilibrize between favouring firm moral principles and stipendiary attention to significant consequences or the well-rounded wellbeing of society. Such a via media offers a more promising approach to ethics than the classical forms of Utilitarianism.