POLS 350 (Bentham/Mill)

kill it!

Natural Law

A law is only valid if it’s morally right.

(Bentham disagrees — says idea of “natural rights” is “nonsense on stilts",” rights do not exist until they are created by law).

Legal Positivism (Bentham)

Law is not based on morality, but on human decisions and conventions — a law can be valid even if it’s morally wrong.

Descriptive v Critical Jurisprudence

Bentham says we must distinguish between the two.

Descriptive jurisprudence: what laws exist.

Critical jurisprudence: what laws should exist (grounded in utility).

Bentham’s Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism: The right action/policy that produces the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Bentham’s Hedonism

Two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure (that point out what we should do).

Hedonistic Doctrine: Only thing that is good in and of itself is pleasure, only thing that is bad in and of itself is pain (criticized by Mill on the basis of quality of pleasure).

Bentham’s Calculus of Happiness

Intensity

Duration

Certainty/Uncertainty (how likely)

Remoteness (how soon)

Fecundity (will it lead to more pleasures)

Purity (is it likely to cause pain too)

Extent (how many effected)

I Drip Cream Rapidly For Pleasurable Encounters

Democratic Reform (Bentham)

Government should prevent abuse of power and work for the majority, aiming to maximize the happiness of a maximal amount of people and secure necessary goods.

Bentham’s Account of Human Welfare

Welfare is equated with the experience or sensation of pleasure. Good policy maximizes well-being/pleasure.

Mill’s Objection to Bentham’s Utilitarianism

Quality of pleasure also matters, not just quantity — what kind, not just how much.

“Higher” and “lower” pleasures.

Objections to Bentham’s utilitarianism

Too demanding. Always maximizing overall happiness, even at personal cost, is a high moral burden.

Permits injustice. Sometimes maximizing happiness requires violating individual rights (ex: ticking time bomb torture scenario).

Mill’s Three Central Issues

(i) “Higher” v. “Lower” pleasures

(ii) Principle of Utility “proof”

(iii) Justice and utilitarianism

Determining an Action (Mill)

The rightness of an action is determined by how much happiness it promotes, and the wrongness is determined by how much it produces the reverse of happiness.

Mill (Quality of pleasure)

Agrees happiness is the ultimate goal, but believes quality and not just quantity of pleasure is important.

• Pleasures of the intellect rank higher than sensual pleasures.

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”; “Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

Haydn and the Oyster example.

Haydn and the Oyster

Haydn: life of travel, fame, and composition — dies at 77.

Oyster: life of mild and sensual pleasure — could live forever.

Bentham would choose the oyster as there is a larger quantity of pleasure, Mill would choose the Haydn and he says the quality of the pleasure matters.

Mill’s Informed Preference Test

Solution of Haydn and the Oyster.

You have to have experienced both the pleasures in question in order to qualify for the test.

• Whichever you consistently prefer, even if it is more demanding, is the higher pleasure.

Not as simple as putting things in “higher” or “lower” categories.

Mill’s Proof of the Utility Principle

Three stages:

1. Happiness is desirable (people desire happiness so happiness is desirable).

2. The greatest happiness is desirable (each person’s happiness is valuable, so the total happiness of everyone is valuable).

3. Nothing other than happiness is desirable (we don’t value anything that isn’t either happiness or tied to it).

Associationism: we come to value things (ex: virtue, art) because they’re associated with happiness.

Harm Principle (Mill)

A person can only rightfully excersize power over someone else against their will if it prevents harm to others

• Their own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient.

Mainly applies to self-regarding conduct (must be free from coercion).

Harm Principle (Important Things to Note)

Doesn’t apply to those without developed faculties.

Harm to others is a necessary, but not sufficient, cause.

Interference is not justified when harm involves is to oneself (not paternalistic).

Objections to Mill’s Harm Principle

No person is an entirely isolated being — harming oneself one can cause harm to others, and set a bad example.

The state should interfere (paternalism).

Harm Principle (Further Considerations)

Harm = not mere dislike, must be “perceptible damage.”

Potential harm is sufficient for interference.

Actions should not be as free as opinions — even opinions lose immunity if they encourage harm.

Mill (truth and knowledge)

Mill stresses the importance of truth, knowledge, and education in encouraging people to make unharmful decisions.

Mill’s “Infallibility Argument”

Many people have thought they were correct, and haven’t been historically — by silencing others you assume you’re perfect and reject this fact.

You must allow your views to be tested and challenges by others if you want to believe it as true (faith in human rationality).

Purpose of government (Mill)

Improve its citizens (morally and intellectually).

Efficiently manage their public affairs.

If a person can’t participate in their government, they won’t care for it.

Representative government (Mill)

Need democracy because a despot would create passive, inactive humans who do not inform or educate themselves.

Against direct democracy because it gives too much power to the ignorant and inexperienced.

Mill’s Proposals for Democracy

System of checks and balances.

Limits on campaign expenditures.

Members of government should not be paid.

Open vote.

Exclude some (illiterate) from voting and give extra votes to the well-educated.