Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are both widely known philosophers who are credited with the theory of Utilitarianism. While a lot of Mill’s ideas stem from a sort of Benthamite viewpoint, he is known as the ‘Father of Utilitarianism’. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist argument that states that the right action is the one which produces the greatest amount of utility. The definition of utility is much debated, but here it is to be defined as happiness or pleasure. Utilitarianism can be used as a framework for various areas of philosophy, most often in ethics, but Mill has a unique conception of morality. Thus, in this paper, I am referring to a general application of utilitarianism, rather than a purely moral approach. I will first explain the ‘greatest happiness principle’, which they share in common, then I will point out the important differences between the two philosophers.
By virtue of being utilitarians, the two philosophers naturally must define concepts such as; utility, happiness, and maximization metrics for these values. As mentioned, Bentham and Mill both argue that happiness or pleasure is the value of utility that is important. Moreover, they both argue that pleasure governs all of our actions and is the sole purpose for acting (An Introduction and Mcleod). Furthermore, this shows that the two of them are, at least sometimes, hedonistic. Hedonism is simply the view that pleasure and the avoidance of pain are valuable and the pursuit of actions. From this conception that happiness or pleasure is utility, Bentham and Mill arrive at the ‘greatest happiness principle’, which states that every action (governmental or individual) ought to result in the greatest amount of happiness of all the options (Sweet). This means that, when an agent or body acts, they ought to choose the action that will produce the maximum amount of happiness. Therefore, the greatest happiness principle feeds directly into the creation of utilitarianism because the view as a whole is concerned with maximizing utility, which is happiness according to both Mill and Bentham.
While there are many subtle differences between Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, I will discuss two of the main ones regarding utilitarianism. Namely, their difference in types of pleasure and the uniqueness of Mill’s view of morality. First, Mill strays from Benthamite viewpoints on pleasures. Bentham argues that the measure of pleasure that is to be used in calculating the utility of an action, is the strict quantity of pleasure. He argues that each person counts as one when measuring governmental actions and that the sum total of individuals’ pleasures is what is important (Sweet). However, Mill departs from this perspective and states that there is a qualitatively different value between some pleasures (Kemerling). Moreover, John Stuart Mill believes that certain pleasures are inherently qualitatively more valuable than others. This is contrasted with Bentham because all pleasures are of equal inherent value for Jeremy Bentham, so that if pleasure from lower taxes count as one unit of pleasure, pleasure from having paid vacation time, is also counted as one. The pleasures that Mill gives higher value to those are ones which employ “higher faculties” (CW 10, 211). The list of such better enjoyments includes “the pleasures of intellect, of the feelings and imagination, and of the moral sentiments” (CW 10, 211). These enjoyments make use of highly developed capacities, like judgment and empathy (Schefczyk). The reason that this distinction between the two philosophers is of importance is because this means that Mill needs a different metric for evaluating pleasures to assess whether an action was right or not. In addition, this distinction opens Mill up for criticism from hedonists because of the qualitative aspect of his theory. Further, some critics argue that Mill’s conception of pleasure is contradictory to hedonism because there are some pleasures that are higher than others. However, hedonism merely states that the only intrinsically valuable thing is pleasure. Therefore, there is no evaluation of different values among pleasures according to a hedonistic viewpoint(Schefczyk). On the other hand, Bentham is a pure hedonist who believes that pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the only human pursuit and that all pleasures are equal in value.
The second distinction that is worth noting is their different conceptions of morality. More specifically, Bentham uses utilitarianism to evaluate morality, but Mill does not. Instead, he “believes in the existence of a class of supererogatory acts (Donner 2009: 140–3). While it might be extremely praiseworthy to do the most good that we can—and while there might be reason to do the most good that we can—failure to do so is not the standard that marks the distinction between acting morally and immorally. Rather, Mill claims, the notion of moral wrong is connected to that of punishment” (Macleod). This means that Mill does not think that morality of an action lies on whether the agent did the most good they can, but that an action is morally wrong if and only if it is blameworthy and deserving of punishment. This viewpoint is debated among critics because of the need to define blameworthy and what exactly constitutes blame or punishment. However, aside from this ambiguity, it is an important perspective to mention because it strays from Bentham’s argument that an action is morally right if it produces the most utility. A brief side note about the two philosophers that plays into this distinction is the fact that while Bentham argues that people are purely self-interested, Mill “believed that a “desire of perfection” and sympathy for fellow human beings belong to human nature. One of the central tenets of Mill’s political outlook is that, not only the rules of society, but also people themselves are capable of improvement” (Macleod). This connects to their difference in opinions about morality because Bentham creates a system where all individuals’ pleasures are equivalent in worth to avoid the natural self-interest he believes people have. However, Mill rejects this idea and instead employs a less equalized view of morality where agents’ blameworthiness is a necessary factor in accessing the wrongness of an action.
Works Cited
Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principle of Morals and Legislation. Batoche Books, December 1, 1999, ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rochester/reader.action?docID=3117711. Accessed 27 October 2022.
Kemerling, Garth. Bentham/Mill, http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5q.htm.
Macleod, Christopher. “John Stuart Mill.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 25 Aug. 2016, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/.
Schefczyk, Michael. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/.
Sweet, William. “Jeremy Bentham (1784-1832).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/jeremy-bentham/