UTILITARIANISM:
A comparison of Bentham and Mill’s
versions
Shared assumptions, methods and purposes
 What is morally good is that which will bring
about the ‘greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people’
 Morality of actions should be judged on their
consequences only
 So, the morality of an action is relative to
the context / situation in which it is done
 There are no absolute moral laws. This means
that the same action can be right or wrong
depending on the circumstances
• They are both interested in developing
rational methods of devising moral guidelines
 They both assume that the aim of morality is
to benefit humanity
 They make no assumptions or claims about
any moral authority above humanity (God or
absolute moral law)
 Their arguments are not grounded in any
metaphysical claims about the nature of morality
 They argue that individuals can often make
decisions for themselves.
Differences between Bentham and Mill
 The differences are rooted in the fact
that Mill’s Utilitarianism was a
development of Bentham’s.
 Bentham wrote in the late 18th Century,
Mill wrote in the mid 19th Century.
 The social and political context in which
they wrote was different.
Bentham was an ‘Act Utilitarian’
...whereas...
Mill was a ‘Rule Utilitarian’
An Act Utilitarian makes a utilitarian judgement
about each act individually
A Rule Utilitarian will adopt general rules about
the kinds of actions that tend to produce
happiness i.e. ‘Don’t be racist’. These will make
decision making easier and may prevent
injustices. The rules also safeguard against
actions that would normally be considered
immoral, being justified on utilitarian grounds.
One of the reasons for Mill adopting his
Harm Principle was that he was
concerned to avoid the ‘tyranny of the
majority’ which could occur under
Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism.
Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus
This is a formulae for calculating the likely utility
of a proposed action which weighs various factors
like intensity and duration. A formulae like this is
necessary if one is to evaluate every act
individually.
(Bentham clearly still maintained a place for rules
and laws in society).
Mill’s ‘Liberty Principle’ or ‘Harm Principle’
Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism contained one very
simple rule:
That one should be free to do and say what one
liked as long as one does not harm others.
Bentham and Mill’s different ideas about
pleasure and happiness
Bentham equated happiness with pleasure.
The greater the extent, intensity etc.. of
pleasure the better. He made no distinction
between different types of pleasure beyond
the criteria he applied in his Hedonic
Calculus. He did not distinguish between the
type of pleasure experienced playing Snakes
& Ladders and Chess.
Mill regarded the various types of pleasures as
being qualitatively different.
‘I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all
ethical questions; but it must be utility in the
largest sense, grounded on the permanent
interests of a man as a progressive being’
On Liberty, 1859
By ‘the permanent interests of man as a
progressive being’ he meant that humanity was
capable of making intellectual and moral progress
and that the ‘higher pleasures’ were grounded in
this.
Mill distinguished between ‘higher’ and
‘lower’ pleasures.
The higher pleasures were mainly
intellectual; Mill claimed that anyone who
had experienced these would automatically
prefer them to the lower pleasures which
were primarily physical.
‘It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to
be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied’
J S Mill, On Utilitarianism, 1863
Summary
Bentham:
Mill:
• Act Utilitarian
• Rule Utilitarian
• Hedonic Calculus • Harm Principle
• Quantity of
• Qualitative
pleasure
pleasures (higher
and lower)
Biographical notes about...
• Jeremy Bentham
• John Stuart Mill