Bentham’s and Mill’s theory of Utility
According to Bentham’s theory of utility he emphasized that there is need for equal weights. Bentham argued that individuals are the best judges of their own happiness. He had an automatic tangency to default non interference by government. He argued that individual’s actions often implicate the happiness of others. According to his theory, individuals may not have the incentive or the ability to coordinate concerted actions that improve comprehensive utility. Therefore, his obligation responded to the fact that there is no need to let people suffer.
Needlessly, every person is entitled to some income for purpose of survival. In addition, every citizen has the right to be protected against violence of other citizens or foreign countries. He also argued that encouragement of both wealth and population by people is a very critical step towards development of utility. This means that if wealth is invariable then the probability of a greater population would reduce wealth per capita. He believed that growth in population is necessary for resistance as individuals try to make ends meet.
He went ahead and argued that the principle of diminishing marginal utility contributes less utility to a rich man than it does to a poor one. Therefore, the reallocation of income to complete equality is desirable as the utility loss of the rich is more than that compensated by utility gain of the poor. Mill’s theory of Utility Mills tries to prove his theory as he argues that people desire to be happy from the daily happenings. Since each individual human being desires his or her own happiness then it must follow that it is important to create happiness for purpose of joy and encouragement.
According to Mill’s argument, the greatest pleasure of human being is to gain moral support. There is a contrast between Mills and Bentham’s theory of Utility. Mill’s contain noble sentiments and impressive traits of thought about utility. He grounds his theory of utility in pressure and pain. Writers like Bentham maintained the theory of utility which is not meant to be contradistinguished from pleasure. However, the pleasure itself together with exemptions from pain is considered as opposing to the agreeable purpose of utility.
This is very much different from Mills theory of utility, where he argued facts about the quantity of pressure and pain. Therefore, Mill’s conception of pressure and pain is based on the fact that each has quantitative and qualitative components. In contrast, Bethany theory of utility argues on the point of quantity versus quality components of utility. Bentham’s argued that the assumption that human happiness is considered as achievement of pleasure and avoidance of pain is irrational. The hedonistic value of any human action is easily calculated by considering how intensely its pleasure is felt and how long the pleasure lasts.
Mill disagreed with Bentham’s argument that all differences among pleasures could be qualified. He argued that pleasure experienced by human beings differ from each other in qualitative ways. The only people who experienced pleasure of both sorts were competent judges in correspondence to relative quality. In his argument, he tried to outline the positive achievement of happiness as a difficult task to be attained. Therefore, pain in this case is warranted according to Mills point of view but only when it results directly in the greater good. References Soccio Douglas, Archetypes of Wisdom, Seventh Edition.
