-
Essay / The idea of utilitarianism according to Jeremy Bentham
Utilitarianism is a moral calculation – dependent on a cost-benefit analysis – whose function is to maximize utility, which determines right from wrong. Jeremy Bentham, who argued that the highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, founded the doctrine; therefore, according to him, the right thing to do is whatever maximizes utility. Furthermore, Bentham argued against opponents of the principle of utility that any moral argument must implicitly be inspired by the idea of maximizing happiness. “When a man tries to combat the principle of utility, it is with reasons drawn, without him realizing it, from the principle itself” (35). So all moral disputes, when properly understood, are disagreements about the application of the principle in question. There is, I think, a difference worth mentioning. This difference lies between the coherent Bentham and the more human John Stuart Mill, who arrived a generation later. Mill, who wrote On Liberty, the classic defense of individual liberty, argued in it that people should be free to do what they want – provided they do not harm others. This implies that the government should not interfere with the freedom of individuals, nor impose on them the beliefs of the majority about the best “way” to live. However, the notion of individual liberty and protection against the will of the majority seems to be at odds with the principle of utility, which, again, is the greatest happiness of the greatest number, which critics argue because it violates the rights of the individual. So how can we not impose the will of the majority if this maximizes utility? For Mill, the answer comes easily: respect for individual freedom is necessary for utility to be perpetuated – this, in the middle of a paper, when his will is morally bad. The second objection concerns common currency, which Bentham regards as quantitative and not qualitative. Opponents argue that values cannot be translated into monetary terms. Utilitarians invoke the “ticking bomb case” to prove that morality is after all a cost-benefit analysis, and that human life has a price, whether we recognize it or not. Finally, I agree with the consistent Bentham, that moral disputes, when rightly understood, embrace to a large extent the application of the principle itself. However, I would also like to think that morality, or the right thing to do, is more than a cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, the consequences/state of affairs approach to justice has become predominant in today's society, particularly in my field of study: economics...