Republic of the Philippines

BOHOL ISLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

Main Campus
C.P.G. Avenue, Tagbilaran City, Bohol 6300
Vision : A premiere S & T University for the formation of a world – class and virtuous human resource for sustainable development of Bohol and the country.
Mission : BISU is committed to provide quality higher education in the arts and sciences, as well as in the professional and technological fields; undertake research and
development, and extension services for the sustainable development of Bohol and the country.

Module III – Principles behind our Moral Disposition Frameworks

Lesson 10: UTILITARIANISM (Pleasure as the standard)

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:
1. Explain the meaning of utilitarianism;
2. discuss Hedonistic Calculus and the Test of Quality;
3. elaborate Mill’s and Bentham’s Moral Sanctions; and
4. distinguish Bentham’s quantitative and Mill’s qualitative senses.

JEREMY BENTHAM
Introduction
Hedonism is the name given to those theories which state that pleasure is the ultimate good: it
is the ultimate standard of morality. It is the highest good, the supreme end of life. The word is
derived from the Greek ‘hedone’ which means pleasure. Thus, hedonistic theories are those
which believe that the aim of life is pleasure. They take self as sentient. It is the metaphysical
foundation of their theory. The self is a mere chain of instincts, feelings and sensations. Reason
is the means of satisfying passions. Thus, man’s solitary duty is fulfillment or satisfaction of
his passions. Gratification of the lower self is the supreme good according to hedonism. From
the theoretical standpoint, hedonism admits of two distinctions: Psychological and Ethical.
Psychological hedonism is factual and ethical hedonism is axiological. Psychological
hedonism describes the nature of people. It asserts that man naturally searches for pleasure.
Ethical hedonism holds that our prime good is pleasure. It says that man ought to search for
pleasure.

Utilitarianism
The modern form of hedonism is called Utilitarianism because pleasure has been taken from the
utilitarian viewpoint. It judges all actions according to their utility as means for the promotion of
general happiness or prevention of general pain. The principle of utilitarianism implies that
theory which accepts or rejects every action according to that tendency which gives the
impression of increasing or decreasing the pleasure or pain of the people whose interests are
conjoined with it. Thus, it is utility which is the standard of morality.
By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action
whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness
of the party whose interest is in question or to oppose that happiness.
By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage,
pleasure, good, or happiness to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to
the party whose interest is considered: if that party be the community in general, then the
happiness of the community: if a particular individual, then the happiness of that individual.
Bentham is a utilitarian and it is on the basis of this theory that he supports selfless hedonism.
According to Altruistic hedonism, universal or general happiness i.e., “the greatest happiness of
the greatest number” is the ultimate moral standard.
Bentham and J.S. Mill advocate this view. But they differ in that Bentham recognizes only
quantitative distinction of pleasure, whereas J.S. Mill admits their qualitative distinction as
well.
Bentham, in his theory, attempted a compromise between psychological and ethical Hedonism.
In the very beginning of his famous book Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,
Bentham says, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign
masters, pleasure and pain. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well
as what we shall do.”
The first line of this statement supports psychological hedonism and the second establishes
ethical hedonism based on it. Thus, according to Bentham man always wants to attain pleasure
and abstain from pain and this constitutes his ethical duty too.

Psychological Hedonism
Bentham is an advocate of psychological hedonism. He says, ‘Nature has placed man under the
empire of pleasure and pain. We owe to them all our ideas; we refer to them all our judgments
and all the determination of our life. His object is to seek pleasure and shun pain. The principle
of utility subjects everything to these two motives.’
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.
It is for them alone to point what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.
Bentham argues that because we do desire pleasure, therefore we ought to desire pleasure. He
bases ethical hedonism on psychological hedonism.

Hedonistic Calculus
Bentham believes in hedonistic calculus. The question arising here is about the mode of
measuring the quantity of pleasures. It is Bentham’s belief that the pleasures are capable of
being measured. He says, ‘weigh pleasures and weigh pains, and as the balance stands, will
stand the question of right and wrong.’
An action is right if it gives pleasure or excess of pleasure over pain. An action is wrong if it
gives pain or excess of pain over pleasure. Thus, Bentham gives a purely hedonistic criterion of
right and wrong. Rightness consists in pleasurableness; Wrongness consists in painfulness. In
calculating pleasures and pains we must take into account their intensity, duration, nearness,
certainty, purity or lack of pain, fruitfulness or that which produces other pleasures, and extent or
the number of people to profit by it.
Bentham holds that the only standard of valuation of pleasure is quantitative. But quantity takes
different forms. It has seven dimensions of value, viz., (i) intensity (ii) duration, (iii) proximity, (iv)
certainty, (v) purity (freedom from pain), (vi) fecundity (fruitfulness), and (vii) extent i.e., the
number of persons affected.
One pleasure is more intense than another. Of pleasures otherwise equal, the more intense
pleasure is preferable to a less intense pleasure. One pleasure is more durable than another. Of
pleasures otherwise equal, the more durable pleasure is preferable to a less durable pleasure.
A proximate pleasure is preferable to a remote pleasure. A certain pleasure is preferable to an
uncertain pleasure. A pleasure is pure when it is free from pain; and it is impure when it is mixed
with pain. A pure pleasure is preferable to an impure pleasure. A pleasure is said to have
fecundity when it gives rise to a number of other pleasures. A fecund pleasure is preferable to a
barren pleasure which does not give rise to other pleasure. A pleasure may be enjoyed by a
small number of persons or a large number of persons.
A pleasure of greater extent is preferable to one of less extent. A pleasure enjoyed by a large
number of persons is preferable to pleasure enjoyed by a small number of persons.
These seven dimensions are well known as Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus or moral arithmetic:
by weighing the quantity of any pleasure, according to these seven dimensions, we can
compare it with that of any other and the one yielding more pleasure can be accepted as
superior.
Here the dimension of extent is important because by accepting it Bentham passes from
selfishness to selflessness.
Gross utilitarianism
Bentham’s Utilitarianism may be called gross or sensualistic because he does not admit
qualitative differences among pleasures. For him, any one pleasure is as good as another
provided they are equal in quantity. He says, quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as
good as poetry. We must bear in mind that Bentham does not mean by purity any superior
quality but merely freedom from pain. A pleasure is pure according to Bentham, when it is
unmixed with pain.

Altruism
Though he regards man as a selfish being, Bentham is an advocate of selflessness. For him,
the highest ethical ideal is the maximum good of the maximum number or the greatest
happiness of the greatest number.
The aim of the individual should be to seek the maximum pleasure of humanity. The aim of life is
social pleasure and not individual pleasure. The standard of morality is group pleasure or
happiness. Distinctions of class etc. are false. The pleasure which is good is that which betters
the group. But this general pleasure does not eliminate individual pleasure; it is rather kept safe
in a similar and unprejudiced form. In this way Bentham accepts the principle of equity and
impartiality.
Bentham’s Hedonism is altruistic, because he takes into account the extent of pleasures, i.e.,
the number of persons affected by them. If a pleasure is shared by many persons, it has a
greater extent and as such it is to be preferred to pleasure that can be enjoyed by only one
person. Thus, Bentham by introducing ‘extent’ as a dimension of pleasure introduced altruism
into the doctrine. The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the moral standard.

Egoism
Though Bentham is an advocate of altruistic Hedonism, he clearly recognizes the natural
egoism of man. He says, “To obtain the greatest portion of happiness for himself is the object of
every rational being. Every man is nearer to himself than he can be to any other man, and no
other man can weigh for him his pleasures and pains. He himself must necessarily be his own
concern. His interest must, to himself, be the primary interest”. That man is naturally
egoistic is repeatedly asserted by Bentham and most emphatically in the following passage:
‘Dream not that men will move their little finger to serve you, unless their own advantages in so
doing be obvious to them. Men never did so and never will, while human nature is made of the
present materials. But they will desire to serve you, when by so doing they can serve
themselves.’
Thus, Bentham clearly admits that man is egoistic by nature, but still he is an advocate of
altruistic hedonism. He says,’ Each is to count for one, and no one for more than one. This is the
democratic principle of justice‘. The moral standard is not the greatest pleasure of the individual,
but the ‘greatest pleasure of the greatest number’ calculated upon the basis of the quality of the
claim of all. Bentham holds that man is naturally selfish. Behind every act of selfless service
there is some selfish aim. Man helps another only if he stands to profit by it.
Bentham holds that the principle of self-preference is at the base of all human motivations. Duty,
law and good qualities, etc. have importance in terms of pleasure and pain.

Moral Sanctions
Now the question arises how is it possible to pass from selfishness to selflessness in this way?
Why will man want the happiness of a maximum number of people if he is naturally selfish?
How can he forego his own pleasure for the pleasure of others? What can be the selfish
element in social duty?
Bentham says there is no compromise between individual and social pleasure. Selfishness and
selflessness are, mutually contradictory. According to Bentham’s own assertion man does not
do anything without some personal interest, then how does he pass from selfishness to
selflessness?
Bentham gives an account for the transition from egoism to altruism. He explains this exchange
of position by the conception of moral sanctions. According to him, these sanctions are of four
kinds—physical or natural sanctions, political sanctions, social sanctions and religious or
supernatural sanctions.
Physical sanctions include natural laws whose disobedience results in pain; an example of
these sanctions is the laws of health. Maintaining a balance in the diet is a natural law. If we
violate this law, our body harbors many kinds of diseases.
Under political sanctions there are laws of the state whose violation makes man liable to
punishment. The fear of the state punishment keeps many people away from anti-social
activities and they do much social work in order to win state recognition.
Social sanctions include social laws whose violation leads to disgrace in society and
sometimes even social boycott. Thus, people maintain their selflessness for fear of society too.
Religious sanctions comprise of laws found in the religious books; the obedience of these
laws leading to heaven and their disobedience to hell. Thus, these social sanctions are another
reason for man to engage himself in selfless activities like alms giving, social service etc.
In this way, man becomes selfless due to external pressure. In fact, it is beneficial to individual
pleasure. Hence it is why man obeys it in this way; both social and individual interests are
fulfilled. Thus, the external sanctions are merely external pressures brought to bear upon the
individual so as to compel him to sacrifice his own interests to those of society.
Bentham says, “pleasures and pains which may be expected to issue from the physical,
political, or social sanctions, must all of them be expected to be experienced in the present life;
those which may be expected to issue from the religious sanctions, may be expected to be
experienced either in the present life or in a future”. “Of these four sanctions the physical is
altogether the ground work of the political and the moral so is it also of the religious, in so far as
the latter bears relation to the present life”. Thus, according to Bentham, the individual passes
from egoism to altruism under the pressure of the external sanctions. The so-called moral
obligation is due to them.

JOHN STUART MILL

John Stuart Mill (1806 1879), the second utilitarian educated at home by his father, is a
prominent economist and member of the philosophical radicals. The influence of Bentham is
clearly apparent both in the career and in the thought of Mill. Throughout his life, Mill devoted
himself to programs for social reform, carrying on the tradition of the philosophical radicals. His
essay On Liberty is a classic defense of the rights of the individual against society. Mill, like
Bentham, found in hedonistic ethics a theoretical justification for his political views and
practices. However, his famous essay “Utilitarianism” commences with an almost reaffirmation
of the hedonism of Bentham. Yet Mill was far from being a mere slavish disciple of his tutor.

Hedonism
J. S. Mill is a hedonist. He says, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of moral utility, or
the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By ‘happiness’ is
intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness’, pain, and the privation of
pleasure. Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and all
desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the
promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.” Mill uses ‘pleasure’ and ‘happiness’ as
synonymous. He does not distinguish them from each other. He regards virtue, health, love of
honor and the like as means of happiness. He does not regard them as intrinsic values.
J.S. Mill gives a hedonistic criterion of right and wrong. An action is right if it yields pleasure or
excess of pleasure over pain. An action is wrong if it gives pain or excess of pain over pleasure.
This is hedonism pure and simple. Rightness consists in conduciveness to pleasure.
Wrongness consists in conduciveness to pain. Bentham also gives a purely hedonistic criterion
of right and wrong.

Psychological Hedonism
J.S. Mill bases his Hedonism on Psychological Hedonism. He offers the following proof of
Psychological Hedonism. “Desiring a thing and finding it pleasant are, in strictness of language,
two modes of naming the same psychological fact; to think of an object as desirable, and to
think of it as pleasant are one and same thing; and to desire anything, except in proportion as
the idea of it is pleasant, is a physical and metaphysical impossibility.” In plain language, it
means that we always desire what is pleasant, and that therefore we desire pleasure.

Ethical Hedonism
J. S. Mill is an advocate of Ethical Hedonism. He says, “The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness
is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as
means to the end. His Ethical Hedonism is based upon Psychological Hedonism. He offers the
following proof of Ethical Hedonism. We always desire pleasure; therefore, pleasure is
desirable. He says, “The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people
actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible is that people hear it, the sole evidence
that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it.” All persons desire pleasure; so,
pleasure is desirable.
Kinds of pleasure
J S Mill recognizes the kinds of pleasure or the qualitative difference of pleasures. Mill, for the
first time, introduces the distinction of quality. Epicurus emphasized the distinction between the
pleasures of our body and those of the mind and gave superiority to the latter on account of
their greater durability and their comparative freedom from painful consequences. But he did not
recognize the qualitative superiority of the mental pleasures. To Bentham also all pleasures are
in kind the same. Though Bentham recognizes purity of pleasure, he does not mean by it
qualitative superiority, but freedom from pain. J S Mill for the first time, holds that the distinction
of quality is independent of quantity, and that the qualitative distinction is as real as the
quantitative. He says, “It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact, that
some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and valuable than others. It would be absurd
that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation
of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.” Hence J. S. Mill’s doctrine is
called Refined Utilitarianism as contrasted with Bentham’s Gross Utilitarianism. Sometimes
Mill’s doctrine is called Qualitative Utilitarianism as distinguished from Bentham’s Quantitative
Utilitarianism.

Test of Quality
What, then, according to J. S. Mill, is the test of quality? He appeals to the verdict of competent
judges.
“Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a
decided preference, irrespective of and feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the
desirable pleasure…Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted
with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both, do give a most marked preference
to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would
consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a
beast’s pleasure.”
Competent judges always prefer intellectual pleasures to bodily and sensual pleasures. From
this verdict of competent judges there can be no appeal. If there is a conflict of opinion among
the competent judges, we should abide by the verdict of the majority of them. J.S. Mill says,
‘’From this verdict of the only competent judges, I apprehend there can be no appeal…If they
differ that of the majority among them, must be admitted to be final.’’
When J.S. Mill is pressed hard to give the ultimate reason of preference felt by the competent
judges, he refers us to the ‘’sense of dignity’’ which is natural to man. It is on account of his
existence that no man would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals capable of
sensual pleasure alone. J.S. Mill says, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” And if the fool, or the pig, is of a
different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. “The other party to
the comparison knows both sides.”

Altruistic Hedonism
J. S. Mill’s Hedonism is altruistic. Bentham also advocated Altruistic Hedonism, but did not offer
any argument for his altruism. J. S. Mill advocates refined utilitarianism and offers a few
arguments. He says, “The utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s
happiness but that of all concerned as between his own happiness and that of others.
Utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.
In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do
as, one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbor as yourself constitute the ideal
perfection of utilitarian morality.”

Proof of Altruistic Hedonism

J. S. Mill offers the following logical argument for altruism. He says, “No reason can be given
why the general happiness is desirable except that each person, so far as he believes it to be
attainable, desires his own happiness. Each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and
the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons. A’s happiness is a
good to A. B’s happiness is a good to B. C’s happiness is a good to C’s aggregate of all
persons. Therefore, general happiness is a good to all.

Sympathy
J. S. Mill offers a psychological explanation of the transition from egoism to altruism. Altruism
grows out of egoism-sympathy or fellow-feeling, out of self-love in the life time of an individual
according to the laws of association and transference of interest from the end to the means. At
first, we were egoists and relieved the miseries of others in order to relieve our own pain. Then
by repetition our own interest was transferred from the end to the means; we forgot our own
pleasure, and came to take delight in relieving the miseries of others, and acquired sympathy.
Thus, sympathy is acquired by the individual in his own life time.

Moral Sanctions
J. S. Mill accounts for moral obligation to pursue general happiness by the external sanctions
and the internal sanction of conscience. Mill assumes that there are two kinds of sanctions for
altruistic conduct, external and internal. Bentham recognizes four external sanctions: physical,
social, religious, and political. But an appeal to these external sanctions means ultimately an
appeal to the self-interest of the individual. Therefore, Mill adds to these external sanctions the
internal sanction of conscience. It is sympathy, fellow-feeling, social feeling of mankind, a feeling
for the happiness of mankind, a desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures. J. S. Mill says,
“The internal sanction of duty is a feeling in our own mind, a pain, more or less intense,
attendant on violation of duty. This feeling when disinterested, and connecting itself with
the pure idea of duty, is the essence of conscience.”