Eat Dessert FirstIn this article, I will discuss the distinct ideas of Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mills. Although not related by blood, this duo occupies the positions of father (Bentham) and "prodigal son" (Mills) of utilitarianism. Where they tend to differ is in their descriptions of hedonism, and yet by combining the two a much stronger philosophy can be achieved. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Jeremy Bentham began his philosophy of utilitarianism in the 19th century as a tool for decoding morality. His goal was to develop a scientific method for accurately predicting what is moral and what is not. Hedonism is an integral part of this belief; the idea that happiness is “necessary and sufficient” for a good life (lecture notes). Bentham argues that the only thing that has intrinsic value is happiness. This means that “goodness is self-contained, something valuable in itself” (Shafer-Landau 23). On the contrary, pain is the only intrinsically priceless thing in life. This reduces pain and pleasure to the same “currency of life” (lecture notes). This amount must be spent in balance, the objective being to always have more happiness than pain. The only ways happiness varies (as an individual act) are by intensity, duration, certainty, or remoteness. When considering a set of acts, one must also examine both purity and fertility. Bentham admits that these variables make measuring happiness and pain difficult, but he believes that a general idea of ​​this amount is all that is necessary to make an ethical decision (lecture notes). This can get tricky, because we need to consider our ultimate pleasure from both a short- and long-term perspective. Bentham's hedonism may seem simple enough (just choose the option that maximizes pleasure), but this philosophy also ran into some interesting problems. One of the most obvious problems with Bentham's approach to hedonism is that of bad pleasures. According to him, all pleasure is intrinsically good and differs only in quantity. Often people react with horror to the idea that someone could get as much pleasure from community service as they do from murder. If the pleasure outweighs the pain caused by killing, it would be considered morally right. However, hedonism has an answer to this. Russ Schafer-Landau argues in his book that “the happiness obtained through bad actions can improve our lives just as much as the happiness that comes from virtue” (34). Upon reflection, this conclusion makes perfect sense. Those of us who consider ourselves “good” always lament the fact that evil can also be pleasant. This is very prevalent in our society, manifesting itself in colloquialisms such as “good things happen to bad people” or “only the good die young.” The illusion of happiness is another common disagreement with Bentham's hedonism. This happens when happiness is achieved through an “undesired optimal life” (lecture notes). A fantastic example of this was provided by Dr. James Baillie, a professor at the University of Portland. He remembers a nighttime walk through the streets of Glasgow, where he met a man whose brain had been basically fried by overconsumption of acid. This man, on a cloudy night, was walking proclaiming the beauty of the stars. Bentham's opponents would say that this is not true happiness. This man's euphoria, although constant and completely real tohim, is caused by a brain disability. However, it can be said that he is perfectly happy with his current state of life. Although we may despise his "happiness", Bentham would say that it is genuine and that the source of the pleasure is therefore irrelevant. Who's to say we wouldn't be just as happy in the same situation, free from worries? John Stewart Mill, a devoted family friend and student of Jeremy Bentham, chose to follow in his mentor's footsteps of happiness. Mill supports Bentham's utilitarian views on ethics, but he departs from the quantity of pleasures and prefers to pursue quality. Mill argues that some pleasures are of a higher caliber than others and require “intellect and refinement” (lecture notes). For example, Mill would argue that for some people, watching a Shakespearean production generates higher levels of happiness than a YouTube video of cats. He states that it is “an indisputable fact that those who equally know and are equally capable of appreciating and appreciating both give a very marked preference to the mode of existence which employs their higher faculties” (Brink 2.2). By engaging our higher faculties, we are able to provide ourselves with a more lasting and meaningful pleasure than mere observation. It follows then that human development can also be considered intrinsic, at odds with Bentham's insistence that only pleasure retains this title. Although he differs from Bentham in some respects, this does not allow Mill to escape criticism. Many would argue that Mill is, in fact, not even a true hedonist. Because of his belief that human development has intrinsic value, he shatters the very definition of hedonism: pleasure should be humanity's highest and only pursuit. This conclusion does not mean that Mill's beliefs necessarily lose credibility or contain less truth, and they may still be applicable to utilitarianism. The utilitarian “formula” is Consequentialism + Hedonism + impartiality (course notes). Moving to Mill’s version of “hedonism,” utilitarianism retains all of its collective variables. The bias argument often poisons Mill's approach, but we can see that he only seems to lose his impartiality (a crucial component of utilitarianism). Demonstrated by a Euthyphro-style dilemma, Mill must either conclude that: Some pleasures are higher than others because judges prefer them, or judges prefer certain pleasures because they are higher. The first option would imply that the selection is impartial, and so Mill chooses the second. This makes it possible to independently apply a higher criterion to access the “quality” of a pleasure. Despite their slightly different perspectives on the finer workings of hedonism, Bentham and Mill both have strong ideas. While it is clear that Mill is not a true “hedonist,” utilitarians do themselves a disservice by dismissing his ideas. Considered simultaneously, these ideas can help embolden utilitarian philosophy. Bentham's hedonism, while strong, does not allow for the possibility of more "refined" pleasure. By applying Mill's theory to utilitarianism, human development can be accommodated without losing the solidarity meticulously constructed by Bentham. It could be argued that applying Mill's theory to Bentham's theory greatly complicates the process of determining good and evil. However, it is not as negative as it seems at first glance. By increasing the number of variables (i.e., the intrinsic value of development), the moral equation can be more accurate about the consequences of an action. As previously noted, Bentham.”