In Chapter Two, Bentham states that the only two groups that oppose the principle of utility are the religionists and the philosophers. By religionists he, I assume, mainly signifies observant Christians, though any religious person would fall under this label. Devout people put service to a deity above bodily pleasure, and hence do not subscribe to Bentham's dichotomous principle of utility. The philosophers that Bentham opposes are the 'ascetics', under which he claims fall the Stoics.
Well, this is another fault of Bentham's limited principle of utility. Stoics pursue virtue, not pleasure. By simply redrawing the lines of the principle of the utility, Stoics are as utilitarian as can be. Well, maybe not as mathematical in their reasoning, but it fits the general mold. This goes the show my early argument, in the last post, that the principle of utility devolves into a tautology if Bentham allows it to encompass any possible criticism. If criticisms are allowed, well then, the principle is wrong. Surely as it is written by him, and also as is written by J.S. Mill. Some things, as Christians and Stoics believe, can not be boiled down to fit a mathematical argument.
This is a perplexing discrepancy in Bentham's reasoning. Modern American and, even moreso, Western European societies are all but secular. A modern moralist could be forgiven for ignoring the influence of religion on the decisions made by individuals, at least on the macro scale. But in Victorian England, or even before, at the time of the American Revolution, religion was as important as ever. I cannot fathom how Bentham could have dared to assume British subjects so secular as to adopt his principle of utilitarian calculus, based on pleasure and pain.
Well, this is another fault of Bentham's limited principle of utility. Stoics pursue virtue, not pleasure. By simply redrawing the lines of the principle of the utility, Stoics are as utilitarian as can be. Well, maybe not as mathematical in their reasoning, but it fits the general mold. This goes the show my early argument, in the last post, that the principle of utility devolves into a tautology if Bentham allows it to encompass any possible criticism. If criticisms are allowed, well then, the principle is wrong. Surely as it is written by him, and also as is written by J.S. Mill. Some things, as Christians and Stoics believe, can not be boiled down to fit a mathematical argument.
This is a perplexing discrepancy in Bentham's reasoning. Modern American and, even moreso, Western European societies are all but secular. A modern moralist could be forgiven for ignoring the influence of religion on the decisions made by individuals, at least on the macro scale. But in Victorian England, or even before, at the time of the American Revolution, religion was as important as ever. I cannot fathom how Bentham could have dared to assume British subjects so secular as to adopt his principle of utilitarian calculus, based on pleasure and pain.
No comments:
Post a Comment