Ethical Hedonism: The Principles of Morals and Legislation

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The hedonistic ideology holds that humankind’s primary goal and the only element that is beneficial to an individual is a pleasure. Therefore, hedonists want to increase their overall enjoyment (the net of any pleasure less any pain or suffering). They contend that the sole purpose of existence is to optimize pleasure and minimize pain, with pleasure serving as the only source of good and pain serving as the sole source of evil. The idea that people are cognitively designed in such a way that they only crave pleasure is known as psychological hedonism. On the other hand, ethical hedonism holds that people’s primary moral duty is to enhance enjoyment or pleasure.

The Conundrum of Hedonism (also known as the Pleasure Paradox) asserts that happiness and pleasure are odd things that do not adhere to regular rules, in that they cannot be obtained directly, but only indirectly. Ethical hedonism has been discussed by several philosophers such as Bentham and Mill whereby they have different ideologies though at some point similar points of view regarding the matter as pointed out in this paper.

Explanation of Bentham’s and Mill’s Hedonism Ideologies

Bentham’s simple quantitative hedonism is the view that pleasure and pains are the only things that matter morally. The view has the advantage of being easy to understand and apply. However, it has the disadvantage of being too simplistic and not taking into account the many different types of pleasure and pain that people experience. Hedonism is a straightforward application of utility (or “the greatest happiness”) calculus (Bentham). That is, Bentham believes that people always act to maximize the amount of utility (or ‘happiness’) they will experience. That belief is based on the assumption that individuals always prefer to experience more pleasure and avoid more pain (Bentham).

But as seen, the assumption is maybe clearly false since there are countless examples of people who have sacrificed the amount of utility they would have experienced by acting in other ways. Utilitarianism according to Bentham is quantitative in the sense that all Bentham is concerned with is the maximization of hedonically computed quantities of total pleasure. As a result, he claims, “Prejudice aside, the game of push-pin is of comparable worth to the arts and sciences of music and poetry (Bentham).” All that matters to Bentham is providing pleasure, regardless of how this is accomplished. For instance, if playing video games gives one more joy than reading Shakespeare, Bentham would consider their life to be better if they played video games.

Mill’s Qualitative Hedonism

Mill’s qualitative hedonism is the view that some kinds of pleasure are better than others. This view is more nuanced and takes into account the different types of pleasure that people can experience. However, it can be difficult to apply in practice and some people may find it hard to understand. Higher joys, according to Mill, are more valuable than lesser ones (1). Higher pleasures are intellectual joys obtained through hobbies such as poetry, reading, or going to the theater. Lower pleasures are instinctual and base; these are the pleasures linked to drinking beer, having intercourse, or lounging on a sun lounger. What people should aim for are greater quality joys, even if the total enjoyment (as calculated by Bentham’s mathematics) is objectively lower as a result.

Furthermore, Mill claims that competent judges, those who have experienced both sorts of pleasure, are better equipped to determine which joys are higher and lower in quality. According to Mill, such knowledgeable judges would and do prefer intellectual pleasures above bodily pleasures (1). On this basis, Mill is vulnerable to the criticism that several people have both read books and sipped beer and would prefer the latter if given the choice. Mill’s defense of his ostensibly unprejudiced separation of lower and higher pleasures is an open question for one’s examination and investigation.

Comparison between Bentham’s Simple Quantitative, and Mill’s Qualitative Hedonism

To measure the moral worth of an activity, Jeremy Bentham proposed quantitative hedonism, which defined it as good if it produced pleasure and bad if it promoted pain. The best action is one that maximizes pleasure while minimizing suffering (Bentham).

He devised a hedonic calculus to evaluate acts, which included the following variables: strength, duration, certainty, how promptly the pleasure will occur, the likelihood that the action would be followed by sensations of the same kind, purity, and the number of persons who will be influenced. Some of the ramifications of such a calculus were disputed by J. S. Mill, Bentham’s godson and a key influence on his ethical theory. For example, his egalitarian nature meant that no one pleasure was more valuable than another. This meant that a flower-joy seller from her weekly bottle of gin was equivalent to an opera-delight lover from a visit to the opera.

On the other hand, Mill disagreed with that judgment and devised a qualitative hedonism alternative in which there are greater and lower pleasures, the higher being intellectual pleasures and the lower being bodily pleasures. His argument that “it is better to be a human being unsatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than an idiot satisfied” asserts that people should prioritize ‘higher’ pleasures (Mill 1).

Thus, they should prefer the cognitively difficult pleasure of going to the opera over the physiological pleasure of drinking a bottle of gin. While both qualitative and qualitatively hedonism encourage the promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, the latter distinguishes between different types of pleasure that the former does not, which influences whether behaviors are regarded right.

The contrast between Bentham’s Simple Quantitative, and Mill’s Qualitative Hedonism

Mill and Bentham are two of the most significant philosophers who advocate for hedonism. They provide their arguments and views on hedonism and its main objective, pleasure, and happiness. The most important assertion they make is that the primary goal of activities that people engage in is the ongoing pursuit of maximum enjoyment. One of the most significant things they have in common is that they value pleasure and happiness.

Both philosophers emphasize the concept of maximizing satisfaction or happiness while decreasing the pain associated with the activity. According to Mill, people are more prone to pick hobbies that bring the most satisfaction (1). Similarly, Bentham observes that people participate in things that bring them the most enjoyment (Bentham). Individuals also operate in ways that allow them to get the most satisfaction out of an activity.

Moreover, in their hedonistic arguments, both Mill and Bentham acknowledge the importance of various types of pleasure. Mill believes that different aspects of happiness are beneficial at different levels. Mill states that high-quality pleasure provides great satisfaction and happiness, but low-quality pleasure provides comparatively low satisfaction and happiness (Mill 1). Bentham presents the key features of pleasure using the method of hedonistic calculus in his claim. According to Bentham, when a person engages in tasks that are presentable and ethical, the person achieves great degrees of satisfaction. He emphasizes the importance of hedonism by using terms such as duration, precision, intensity, likelihood, extent, and purity.

Evaluation

Bentham’s vision of hedonic calculus is widely regarded as theoretical, if not practically unattainable. Philosophers in the twentieth century such as Mill identified other flaws in utilitarian processes. One of them, for example, was with the process of determining the effects of action—a process that presents philosophical as well as practical issues about what should be counted as consequences, even without accurately measuring their value. According to Mill, the technique for comparing alternate actions is likewise challenging (1). If one action takes more time to do than another, one can wonder if they might be considered alternatives.

Even what constitutes an activity is not settled philosophically. These issues, however, are shared by practically all normative ethical theories, because most of them identify the consequences of an act, particularly the hedonic effects, as relevant ethical concerns. The core understanding of utilitarianism, that happiness should be promoted and sadness avoided wherever feasible, appears undeniable. The crucial question, however, is whether this simple formula can be used to assess the entirety of normative ethics.

Conclusion

The relevance of hedonism and its focus on maximizing happiness while reducing pain from an activity is discussed in this essay. It covers two philosophers’ arguments, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. According to Mill and Bentham’s reasoning, the ultimate goal of hedonism is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Furthermore, pleasure is quite important in the research of hedonism as well as in human lifestyles. The essay also discusses the differences and parallels between Mill’s and Bentham’s ideas. As a result of the parallels and differences, the essay indicates that Mill and Bentham share some beliefs about hedonism.

Works Cited

Bentham, J. (n.d.). The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Web.

Mill, J. S. (n.d.). ‘On Liberty by John Stuart Mill’ (Chapter 1). Web.

Click Here To Order Now!