Eat Dessert FirstIn this article I will address the distinct ideas of Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mills. Although not related by blood, this duo occupies the positions of father (Bentham) and “prodigal son” (Mills) of utilitarianism. Where they tend to differ is in the description of hedonism, yet by combining the two you can get a much stronger philosophy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Jeremy Bentham began his philosophy of utilitarianism in the 19th century as a tool for decoding morality. His goal was to develop a scientific method to accurately predict what is and is not moral. An integral part of this belief is hedonism; the idea that happiness is “necessary and sufficient” for a good life (class notes). Bentham argues that the only thing that has intrinsic value is happiness. This means that “goodness is autonomous, something valuable in itself” (Shafer-Landau 23). On the contrary, pain is the only thing intrinsically priceless in life. This reduces pain and pleasure to the same “currency of life” (class notes). This must be spent in balance with the goal of always having more happiness than pain. The only ways happiness varies (as an individual act) is through intensity, duration, certainty, or remoteness. When considering a collection of records both purity and fruitfulness must be examined. Bentham admits that these variables make it difficult to measure happiness and pain, however he believes that a general sense of that amount is all that is needed to make an ethical decision (class notes). This can get tricky, as we need to view our final amount of pleasure through both a short-term and long-term lens. Bentham's hedonism may seem simple enough (just choose the option that maximizes pleasure), but there are also some interesting problems this philosophy has encountered. One of the most obvious problems with Bentham's approach to hedonism is that of evil pleasures. According to him, every pleasure is intrinsically good and differs only in quantity. People often react with horror to the idea that someone could derive as much pleasure from community service as from murder. If the pleasure outweighed the pain caused by the killing, it would be considered morally right. However, hedonism has an answer to this. Russ Schafer-Landau argues in his book that “happiness gained from evil deeds can improve our lives as much as happiness derived from virtue” (34). Upon further reflection, this conclusion makes perfect sense. Those of us who consider ourselves “good” always complain that even bad can feel good. This is very prevalent in our society, manifesting itself in familiar phrases like “good things happen to bad people” or “only the good die young.” The illusion of happiness is another common disagreement with Bentham's hedonism. This occurs when happiness is achieved through an “undesired optimal life” (lesson notes). A fantastic example of this was provided by Dr. James Baillie, a professor at the University of Portland. He remembered a night spent walking the streets of Glasgow, where he met a gentleman whose brain had been practically fried by excessive acid use. This man, one cloudy night, went around proclaiming the beauty of the stars. Bentham's opponents would say that this is not true happiness. This man's euphoria, while constant and totally real to him, is caused by a brain disability. You can still say that it is perfectlysatisfied with his current state of life. Although we may despise his “happiness,” Bentham would say that it is genuine, and therefore the source of the pleasure is out of the question. Who says we wouldn't be just as happy in the same situation, free from worries? John Stewart Mill, a familyfriend and devoted student of Jeremy Bentham, chose to follow in the footsteps of happiness of his mentor. Mill supports Bentham's utilitarian views on ethics, however he diverges from the quantity of pleasures and prefers to seek quality. Mill argues that some pleasures are of a higher caliber than others and require “intellect and refinement” (lecture notes). For example, Mill argues that for some people, watching a Shakespearean production generates higher levels of happiness than a YouTube cat video. He states that it is "an indisputable fact that those who are equally informed and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both give a stronger preference to the mode of existence which employs their higher faculties" (Brink 2.2). By engaging our higher faculties, we are able to provide ourselves with more lasting and meaningful pleasure than simple observation. It follows then that human development can also be seen as intrinsic, at odds with Bentham's insistence that only pleasure retains that title. Although he differs from Bentham in some respects, this does not allow Mill to escape criticism. Many argue that Mill, in reality, is not even a true hedonist. Believing that human development has intrinsic value, he breaks the very definition of hedonism: that pleasure should be humanity's only and highest pursuit. This conclusion does not mean that Mill's beliefs necessarily lose credibility or contain less truth, and may still be applicable to utilitarianism. The utilitarian “formula” is consequentialism + hedonism + impartiality (class notes). Moving on to Mill's version of “hedonism,” utilitarianism retains all its collective variables. The argument from partiality often plagues Mill's approach, but we can see that he just seems to miss out on impartiality (a crucial component of utilitarianism). Demonstrated through a Euthyphro-style dilemma, Mill must conclude that: some pleasures are higher than others because judges prefer them or judges prefer some pleasures because they are higher. The first option would imply that the selection is impartial, and so Mill chooses the second. This allows you to independently apply a higher criterion to access the “quality” of a pleasure. Despite their slightly different perspectives on the finer workings of hedonism, both Bentham and Mill have strong ideas. While it is clear that Mill is not a true “hedonist,” utilitarians do themselves a disservice by belittling his ideas. When viewed simultaneously, these ideas can help encourage utilitarian philosophy. Bentham's hedonism, however strong, does not allow for the possibility of a more "refined" pleasure. By applying Mill's theory to utilitarianism, it is possible to explain human development without losing the solidarity meticulously constructed by Bentham. It could be argued that applying Mill's theory to Bentham's greatly complicates the process of distinguishing right from wrong. However, this is not as bad as it initially seems. By increasing the number of variables (i.e. the intrinsic value of development), the moral equation can be more exact regarding the consequences of an action. As stated earlier, Bentham himself admitted that this science does not require plugging precise numbers into a long equation every time a decision needs to be made. A general idea of ​​what is moral allows us to make more judgments.”