After a short hiatus, philosophical reflections are back. Though they will be interrupted again soon as I travel to Nicaragua on vacation.
I have begun reading An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation by Jeremy Bentham. I just finished Mill's On Liberty, so I suppose this is necessary required reading. The first question arises in the introduction, not even written by Bentham. Bentham is summarized as arguing that all humans live to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Well, I object, though perhaps only on the ground of semantics. To be honest, I don't yet know what Bentham truly means by this. If he means that humans want only pleasure in the modern sense of the word, and do not care for the greater part of what forms eudaimonia, then of course I object. Ask any parent - who would willingly take on so much grief and pain and toil if it were not for a much greater, higher happiness. A happiness that I'm not sure you can call pleasure, but that is certainly desirable. I hope this is not what Bentham truly intends to say, and that it is just a foible on the part of the introduction's author.
The preface is written in the third person, but rather awkwardly and with the constant knowledge that the subject is also the other. This makes the preface fairly annoying to read, constantly jolting the reader from his rhythm to confusion. Still more readable than Hobbes though.
Chapter One kicks off with a few definitions. Sadly, Bentham does restrict his principle of utility to pure pleasure and pain, as I objected to above. It seems he added to his principle in an endnote after the work was written to align his utilitarianism more with what would become John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism - taking into account virtue, future benefit, and self-fulfillment. I am not sure, however, it will be as easy as adding endnotes to reconcile the rest of his work with this new viewpoint. My beliefs, of course, do not agree with Bentham's primitive view of utility. Maximizing good, or pleasure, is only good in the sense that we do everything we can to pamper our pets. Most people require governments to protect their pursuit of liberty and happiness so they can lead uncomplicated lives and make incremental progress towards the Ubermensch. But ask Marcus Aurelius or Seneca, and he will tell you that virtue does require a just bed to sleep in.
The second disagreeable portion of Bentham first chapter is his preemptive defense against any argument. He claims that any criticism of his principle of utility merely alters the original parameters - what is right and what is not - but does not address the form of the argument. I think this ends up making his argument pedantic and redundant. He posits that the action which brings about the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people is the right action. If he qualifies that view, with protections for the minority or restricting certain actions, then his argument becomes no better than 'the action which is right, is the right action'. I was dismayed to see this nonsensical argument appear towards the end of the chapter.
I have begun reading An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation by Jeremy Bentham. I just finished Mill's On Liberty, so I suppose this is necessary required reading. The first question arises in the introduction, not even written by Bentham. Bentham is summarized as arguing that all humans live to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Well, I object, though perhaps only on the ground of semantics. To be honest, I don't yet know what Bentham truly means by this. If he means that humans want only pleasure in the modern sense of the word, and do not care for the greater part of what forms eudaimonia, then of course I object. Ask any parent - who would willingly take on so much grief and pain and toil if it were not for a much greater, higher happiness. A happiness that I'm not sure you can call pleasure, but that is certainly desirable. I hope this is not what Bentham truly intends to say, and that it is just a foible on the part of the introduction's author.
The preface is written in the third person, but rather awkwardly and with the constant knowledge that the subject is also the other. This makes the preface fairly annoying to read, constantly jolting the reader from his rhythm to confusion. Still more readable than Hobbes though.
Chapter One kicks off with a few definitions. Sadly, Bentham does restrict his principle of utility to pure pleasure and pain, as I objected to above. It seems he added to his principle in an endnote after the work was written to align his utilitarianism more with what would become John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism - taking into account virtue, future benefit, and self-fulfillment. I am not sure, however, it will be as easy as adding endnotes to reconcile the rest of his work with this new viewpoint. My beliefs, of course, do not agree with Bentham's primitive view of utility. Maximizing good, or pleasure, is only good in the sense that we do everything we can to pamper our pets. Most people require governments to protect their pursuit of liberty and happiness so they can lead uncomplicated lives and make incremental progress towards the Ubermensch. But ask Marcus Aurelius or Seneca, and he will tell you that virtue does require a just bed to sleep in.
The second disagreeable portion of Bentham first chapter is his preemptive defense against any argument. He claims that any criticism of his principle of utility merely alters the original parameters - what is right and what is not - but does not address the form of the argument. I think this ends up making his argument pedantic and redundant. He posits that the action which brings about the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people is the right action. If he qualifies that view, with protections for the minority or restricting certain actions, then his argument becomes no better than 'the action which is right, is the right action'. I was dismayed to see this nonsensical argument appear towards the end of the chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment