JEREMY
BENTHAM
“The
greatest happiness of the greatest number….”
Utilitarianism is one of the most
powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of
philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century,
proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical
theory.
Though there are many varieties
of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the
morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many
ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a
form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of
consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do
with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought
to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as
one's own good.
The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like
Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize
the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest
number’.
Utilitarianism is also
distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's happiness counts
the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially considered.
My good counts for no more than anyone else's good. Further, the reason I have
to promote the overall good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote
the good. It is not peculiar to me.
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) was
influenced both by Hobbes' account of human nature and Hume's account of social
utility. He famously held that humans were ruled by two sovereign masters —
pleasure and pain. We seek pleasure and the avoidance of pain, they “…govern us
in all we do, in all we say, in all we think…” (Bentham PML, 1). Yet he also
promulgated the principle of utility as the standard of right action on the
part of governments and individuals. Actions are approved when they are such as
to promote happiness, or pleasure, and disapproved of when they have a tendency
to cause unhappiness, or pain (PML). Combine this criterion of rightness with a
view that we should be actively trying to promote overall happiness, and one
has a serious incompatibility with psychological egoism. Thus, his apparent
endorsement of Hobbesian psychological egoism created problems in understanding
his moral theory since psychological egoism rules out acting to promote the
overall well-being when that it is incompatible with one's own. For the
psychological egoist, that is not even a possibility. So, given ‘ought implies
can’ it would follow that we are not obligated to act to promote overall
well-being when that is incompatible with our own. This generates a serious
tension in Bentham's thought, one that was drawn to his attention. He sometimes
seemed to think that he could reconcile the two commitments empirically, that
is, by noting that when people act to promote the good they are helping
themselves, too. But this claim only serves to muddy the waters, since the
standard understanding of psychological egoism — and Bentham's own statement of
his view — identifies motives of action which are self-interested. Yet this
seems, again, in conflict with his own specification of the method for making
moral decisions which is not to focus on self-interest — indeed, the addition
of extent as a parameter along which to measure pleasure produced distinguishes
this approach from ethical egoism. Aware of the difficulty, in later years he
seemed to pull back from a full-fledged commitment to psychological egoism,
admitting that people do sometimes act benevolently — with the overall good of
humanity in mind.
Bentham also benefited from
Hume's work, though in many ways their approaches to moral philosophy were
completely different. Hume rejected the egoistic view of human nature. Hume
also focused on character evaluation in his system. Actions are significant as
evidence of character, but only have this derivative significance. In moral
evaluation the main concern is that of character. Yet Bentham focused on
act-evaluation. There was a tendency — remarked on by J. B. Schneewind (1990),
for example — to move away from focus on character evaluation after Hume and
towards act-evaluation. Recall that Bentham was enormously interested in social
reform. Indeed, reflection on what was morally problematic about laws and
policies influenced his thinking on utility as a standard. When one legislates,
however, one is legislating in support of, or against, certain actions.
Character — that is, a person's true character — is known, if known at all,
only by that person. If one finds the opacity of the will thesis plausible then
character, while theoretically very interesting, isn't a practical focus for
legislation. Further, as Schneewind notes, there was an increasing sense that
focus on character would actually be disruptive, socially, particularly if
one's view was that a person who didn't agree with one on a moral issues was
defective in terms of his or her character, as opposed to simply making a
mistake reflected in action.
But Bentham does take from Hume
the view that utility is the measure of virtue — that is, utility more broadly
construed than Hume's actual usage of the term. This is because Hume made a
distinction between pleasure that the perception of virtue generates in the
observer, and social utility, which consisted in a trait's having tangible benefits
for society, any instance of which may or may not generate pleasure in the
observer. But Bentham is not simply reformulating a Humean position — he's
merely been influenced by Hume's arguments to see pleasure as a measure or
standard of moral value. So, why not move from pleasurable responses to traits
to pleasure as a kind of consequence which is good, and in relation to which,
actions are morally right or wrong? Bentham, in making this move, avoids a
problem for Hume. On Hume's view it seems that the response — corrected, to be
sure — determines the trait's quality as a virtue or vice. But on Bentham's
view the action (or trait) is morally good, right, virtuous in view of the
consequences it generates, the pleasure or utility it produces, which could be
completely independent of what our responses are to the trait. So, unless Hume
endorses a kind of ideal observer test for virtue, it will be harder for him to
account for how it is people make mistakes in evaluations of virtue and vice.
Bentham, on the other hand, can say that people may not respond to the actions
good qualities — perhaps they don't perceive the good effects. But as long as
there are these good effects which are, on balance, better than the effects of
any alternative course of action, then the action is the right one.
Rhetorically, anyway, one can see why this is an important move for Bentham to
be able to make. He was a social reformer. He felt that people often had
responses to certain actions — of pleasure or disgust — that did not reflect
anything morally significant at all. Indeed, in his discussions of
homosexuality, for example, he explicitly notes that ‘antipathy’ is not
sufficient reason to legislate against a practice:
The circumstances from which this
antipathy may have taken its rise may be worth enquiring to…. One is the
physical antipathy to the offence…. The act is to the highest degree odious and
disgusting, that is, not to the man who does it, for he does it only because it
gives him pleasure, but to one who thinks [?] of it. Be it so, but what is that
to him?.
Bentham then notes that people
are prone to use their physical antipathy as a pretext to transition to moral
antipathy, and the attending desire to punish the persons who offend their
taste. This is illegitimate on his view for a variety of reasons, one of which
is that to punish a person for violations of taste, or on the basis of
prejudice, would result in runaway punishments, “…one should never know where
to stop…” The prejudice in question can be dealt with by showing it “to be
ill-grounded”. This reduces the antipathy to the act in question. This
demonstrates an optimism in Bentham. If a pain can be demonstrated to be based
on false beliefs then he believes that it can be altered or at the very least
‘assuaged and reduced’. This is distinct from the view that a pain or pleasure
based on a false belief should be discounted. Bentham does not believe the
latter. Thus Bentham's hedonism is a very straightforward hedonism. The one
intrinsic good is pleasure, the bad is pain. We are to promote pleasure and act
to reduce pain. When called upon to make a moral decision one measures an
action's value with respect to pleasure and pain according to the following:
intensity (how strong the pleasure or pain is), duration (how long it lasts),
certainty (how likely the pleasure or pain is to be the result of the action),
proximity (how close the sensation will be to performance of the action),
fecundity (how likely it is to lead to further pleasures or pains), purity (how
much intermixture there is with the other sensation). One also considers extent
— the number of people affected by the action.
Keeping track of all of these
parameters can be complicated and time consuming. Bentham does not recommend
that they figure into every act of moral deliberation because of the efficiency
costs which need to be considered. Experience can guide us. We know that the
pleasure of kicking someone is generally outweighed by the pain inflicted on
that person, so such calculations when confronted with a temptation to kick
someone are unnecessary. It is reasonable to judge it wrong on the basis of
past experience or consensus. One can use ‘rules of thumb’ to guide action, but
these rules are overridable when abiding by them would conflict with the
promotion of the good.
Bentham's view was surprising to
many at the time at least in part because he viewed the moral quality of an
action to be determined instrumentally. It isn't so much that there is a
particular kind of action that is intrinsically wrong; actions that are wrong
are wrong simply in virtue of their effects, thus, instrumentally wrong. This
cut against the view that there are some actions that by their very nature are
just wrong, regardless of their effects. Some may be wrong because they are
‘unnatural’ — and, again, Bentham would dismiss this as a legitimate criterion.
Some may be wrong because they violate liberty, or autonomy. Again, Bentham
would view liberty and autonomy as good — but good instrumentally, not intrinsically.
Thus, any action deemed wrong due to a violation of autonomy is derivatively
wrong on instrumental grounds as well. This is interesting in moral philosophy
— as it is far removed from the Kantian approach to moral evaluation as well as
from natural law approaches. It is also interesting in terms of political
philosophy and social policy. On Bentham's view the law is not monolithic and
immutable. Since effects of a given policy may change, the moral quality of the
policy may change as well. Nancy Rosenblum noted that for Bentham one doesn't
simply decide on good laws and leave it at that: “Lawmaking must be recognized
as a continual process in response to diverse and changing desires that require
adjustment” (Rosenblum 1978, 9). A law that is good at one point in time may be
a bad law at some other point in time. Thus, lawmakers have to be sensitive to
changing social circumstances. To be fair to Bentham's critics, of course, they
are free to agree with him that this is the case in many situations, just not
all — and that there is still a subset of laws that reflect the fact that some
actions just are intrinsically wrong regardless of consequences. Bentham is in
the much more difficult position of arguing that effects are all there are to
moral evaluation of action and policy.
Bye
Written:
Omar
Colmenares Trujillo
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario