What Determines Whether An Action Is Morally Right

1 What Determines Whether An Action Is Morally Right According To B

What determines whether an action is morally right, according to Bentham? How does he theory reflect both utilitarianism and hedonism? Explain. 2. What (in this course) do we mean by scapegoat examples? Why are they problematic for utilitarians? Explain. 3. What is one major difference between Bentham's theory and Mill's theory? Why does Mill think it is necessary to modify Bentham's theory? Do you think he is correct? Explain.

Paper For Above instruction

Jeremy Bentham, a seminal figure in the development of utilitarianism, proposed a moral framework centered on the principle of utility, which posits that the rightness of an action depends on its capacity to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Bentham’s approach fundamentally reflects both utilitarianism and hedonism by asserting that the ultimate measure of an action’s morality lies in its tendency to generate pleasure and reduce pain. This dual reflection emphasizes that human motivations are fundamentally driven by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of suffering, and ethical decisions should aim to maximize these experiences.

In Bentham's view, the moral worth of an action is determined through a quantitative analysis known as the felicific calculus, which evaluates the potential pleasure and pain resulting from an action. This calculus considers factors such as intensity, duration, certainty, and propinquity of pleasures or pains. Accordingly, moral decisions are not based on intrinsic virtues but on calculative assessments that seek to optimize overall happiness, making his theory a form of act utilitarianism grounded firmly in hedonistic principles.

Scapegoat examples refer to scenarios where a wrongdoer is unjustly blamed or sacrificed to serve a broader social or political purpose. In the context of utilitarianism, these examples highlight a problematic aspect: they expose potential conflicts between societal well-being and individual rights. Utilitarians are challenged by scapegoat cases because sacrificing an innocent individual might, in some cases, produce more overall happiness or social stability, thus seeming morally permissible or even obligatory from a purely utilitarian perspective. However, such outcomes conflict with moral intuitions about justice and individual rights, illustrating a tension within utilitarian ethics.

One major difference between Bentham's and Mill's utilitarian theories concerns their treatment of happiness and moral rules. Bentham's utilitarianism is quantitative and focuses on the overall amount of pleasure without distinguishing between types of pleasure. Mill, on the other hand, introduced a qualitative dimension, arguing that some pleasures—intellectual and moral—are higher and more valuable than mere physical pleasures. This modification underscores that not all pleasures are morally equivalent, and some are inherently superior, leading Mill to advocate for higher-quality experiences as central to happiness.

Mill believed it was necessary to modify Bentham’s theory to address its limitations and to better align ethical considerations with human nature and dignity. He argued that solely aggregating pleasure could lead to morally questionable outcomes, such as sacrificing individual rights for the sake of maximizing happiness. By emphasizing higher pleasures, Mill sought to preserve individual integrity and moral development alongside utilitarian goals. This modification enhances the theory's capacity to account for justice, rights, and moral growth, making it more robust and ethically nuanced.

I believe Mill's revision of utilitarianism is correct because it recognizes that humans value more than just pleasure and pain; they also value meaningful, intellectual, and moral experiences. Ignoring these aspects risks reducing morality to mere calculation of pleasure, which can justify morally wrong acts if they increase overall happiness. Incorporating qualitative distinctions ensures that utilitarianism remains aligned with moral intuitions about justice and the intrinsic worth of higher human pursuits, providing a more comprehensive ethical framework.

References

• Sidgwick, H. (1907). The Methods of Ethics. Macmillan.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Benton, T. (2010). Philosophical Foundations of Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press.
• Freeman, M. (2008). Mill's Moral Philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/
• Schneider, B. (2017). Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed. Bloomsbury Academic.
• Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2015). Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Cengage Learning.
• Baggini, J. (2012). The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher. Granta Books.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Nagel, T. (1979). The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.