How is someone supposed to judge whether a decision was a positive or negative call? With the felicific calculus algorithm Jeremy Bentham Believed he Figured out a way to accurately judge this. He used questions to ask himself after he decided to measure on the hedonic scale. A hedon is what Bentham decided to call the unit of measurement for his algorithm. These questions were focused more around things like the intensity, duration, certainty, uncertainty, extent, nearness, farness, and purity of the decision he made. Making decisions using this system is primarily focused toward pleasure rather than pain. When making these decisions, the person making it does not only think of them selves, they have to think about everyone involved in the situation. An example of this would be if there were 50 people in a room and 48 of them wanted to turn the lights off then, that person would agree to turn off the lights as well because it maximizes the pleasure of the majority in the room. Where the fault in this utilitarianism is that if those same 50 people were in a room and two of them had a different belief than the other 48, and the other 48 wanted to kill them because of it then the person who wants to maximize pleasure is going to agree to kill them. Obviously this is where the fault of this philosophy is.
This philosophy was not vastly accepted in Britain when Bentham came up with, but it was well liked in France. He also believed that his philosophy should account animals as well. This was out of character during this time because animals were used for labor and food. People in present day more commonly think of animals such as their pets, but it opened the question before someone did something to the animal. That question is still asked today in most people's heads. The question is, how is the animal going to feel about this, and are they going to suffer? It is crazy to see bits in pieces of certain philosophies in most people.
"the person who wants to maximize pleasure is going to agree to kill them." Well, only if that person and the others are unconscionable murderers.
ReplyDelete"Obviously this is where the fault of this philosophy is." The fault is perhaps that Bentham attributed general good will to most people, and didn't close the loophole that might allow "the greatest number" to behave murderously. To be clear, though, Bentham did not intend utilitarianism to support immorality.
It's important to remember that in Bentham's Britain, "the greatest number" WERE unhappy, and exploited, for the benefit of a relative and privileged few. He was at heart a reformer, aiming to improve the lives of the vast majority of his peers.
"Also say the decision came down to kill somebody for the greater good, then a utilitarian would look into the duration and pain in the death, to make their decision of whether or not it is worth that person dying for other people." Again, this would only be true in the case of an immoral utilitarian. Bentham was assuming good will on the part of those who proposed to deploy a felicific calculus.
Nonethelss, the loopholes exist and JS Mill proposed to close them with his quality distinction etc. But I think we should not imply that Bentham was anything but a well-intentioned advocate of a more just social order, who devised an ethical philosophy meant to achieve jsut that.