Revue d'Etudes Benthamiennes 9 (2011):web (2011)

Authors
Abstract
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham are often said to have held opposed views concerning the way “the value” of different pleasures should be estimated. Mill is accused of being an inconsistent utilitarian because he thought that, when comparing the value of two pleasures, we should not forget to take their “quality” into account. Bentham, on the other hand, is said to have believed that we should take “only quantity” into consideration. By verifying what they actually wrote, and reflecting on what they meant by words like “value”, “quantity”, and “quality”, we find that these allegations are largely imaginary and that the difference between Mill and Bentham on this question has (at least) been exaggerated. Bentham, for example, did not write that "quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry", as is so often reported. In his Principles of Morals and Legislation he clearly tells us why he rejects the inaccurate word “quantity”, when speaking of “the value of (a lot of) pain or pleasure”, and he explicitly introduces “quality” – both the word and the concept – in his analysis of rewards and punishments. These clarifications allow us to sort-out a few other confusions concerning utilitarianism. We explain, for example, why authors like Amartya Sen and Michael Sandel are mistaken in believing that rights and freedoms have “no intrinsic value” (only instrumental value) in utilitarian ethics.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Defence of Mill's Qualitative Hedonism.Rex Martin - 1972 - Philosophy 47 (180):140 - 151.
J. S. Mill's Conception of Utility.Ben Saunders - 2010 - Utilitas 22 (1):52-69.
Moral Rules and J. S. Mill's Educational Mandate.Ki Su Kim - 1988 - Journal of Moral Education 17 (2):105-113.
Utilitarianism.John Stuart Mill - 1863 - Cleveland: Cambridge University Press.
Higher and Lower Pleasures.Benjamin Gibbs - 1986 - Philosophy 61 (235):31 - 59.
Mill on Quality and Quantity.C. Schmidt–Petri - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):102-104.
Mill on Quality and Quantity.C. Schmidt–Petri - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):102–104.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-02-26

Total views
253 ( #38,103 of 2,448,711 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
63 ( #9,923 of 2,448,711 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes