explain ,mills critisisim of bentham a01 20 marker

can you explain the points in which i can answer thislike
1.compare them
2.....
3...
and so oon

i can only think of 3 allterations
1 rule utilitarianisim
the law of justice
3 higher and lower plasures do you know any more

act utilitarianism has no limit. it isn't about desert or obligation but simply fulfilling collective desires whether or not those desires are earned or deserved. the minority might have a legitimate claim to their own happiness (for example, they want to keep owning their property because they worked hard to gain it while the majority did not) but bentham's formula simply says that simply because there are more people in the majority means that they can do whatever they want to the minority so long as there is a technical excess of happiness created and a deficiency of sadness net. so act utilitarianism is very impersonal and void of any kind of legitimacy-creating context.

mill's formula (rule util.) is better here because it is more kantian and universal to individuals - you can't just treat people like pure tools and as means to an end. if you treat one person in a certain way, you must treat everybody like this. the rule of these rules is that the rules themselves are procedural, not substantive - if you follow the procedures which would be thought of to produce generally (not all the time, which is a limit) happy result for the society as a whole, then it is better to have rules that go against brute act utilitarianism because if nobody followed rules that lead to that general happiness then you'll have a society of disorder and mistrust (etc) which is not stably a utilitarian society. so let's say that somebody worked to earn their house that the mob want to steal for their own larger happiness - a universal rule that it is wrong to steal would mean that people can all have an incentive to work which boosts an economy (which is a greater good for the greater number), and they would still be able to enjoy their house without the constant worry of it suddenly disappearing. so mills' theory factors in fairness and universality, we can say, whereas bentham's theory is a "pig ethic" because it can justify piggish and uncivilised acts; for instance, "9/10 enjoy gang rape"...but does the rape victim deserve to be raped based on their deeds in society? are they a slave to the greater number just because they can give them happiness that they aren't necessarily deserving of?

but iisnt that just comparing that wouldnt be a criticism right

I am critically comparing - I am saying that one is better than the other, and I can't say that one is better than the other without a comparison. also, I haven't done this AS stuff in years so forgive me for not necessarily covering each and every kind of criticism - the biggest criticism of bentham in my mind, however, is the one I talked about - bentham's account isn't relating to any sentiment of "justice" or "deservedness" outside of the potentially undeserved pleasure of the greatest number - the greatest number might be pigs unworthy of such pleasures, and the smallest number might be the most deserving of all, as I implied. he simply doesn't allow for that notion of "deserve" though - he believes that we as human beings can only think about morality in hedonic metrics. his theory also seems to generalise - the "greatest number" isn't a fixed selection of people - the greatest number principle can run into condorcet's problem of voting which is that the majority in one scenario might not be a majority in another one - group A might be a majority but groups B and C, depending on how you lump the individuals into these groups, could be a majority depending on how you group the people into such groups in the first place. but that's going waay into unnecessary detail for a level, most likely - I don't remember things like that being mentioned in my a level class. maybe you'll still get marks for going above and beyond though. mill's theory doesn't have quite so much of an issue in this department - he is talking more about the overall society as a fixed and limited entity, not a greatest number that might change from issue to issue.

thanks it was useful

how would i answer an ao2 30 mrker that says "utilitarianisim promotes imoral behaviour" explain this view

if I had to tell you the single points of an essay like this one I'd briefly just say:

1) if we define morality based only on pleasure and nothing else (act* utilitarianism), everybody is merely a utility (as the theory's name "utilitarianism" suggests) - our acts are purely measures of servitude to a higher number of people not because this is correct but because the morality doesn't allow for any insight other than "more people = more moral desert". this< isn't strong if we want a theory of morality that is in proportion to things like act-based "justice"; if a person does good things, they ought to have good things done back for them, right? but if utilitarianism doesn't account for that kind of this-for-that equilibrium, then it is "immoral" because it is a master-slave morality whereby the master must always be served regardless of his good deeds or bad deeds, which is not balanced but actually imbalanced for one group regarding their deeds and their rewards (or lackthereof for each of them)

2) act utilitarianism is uncertain as to both the consequences of actions and the beneficiary of actions. for example, how do we know if an act will necessarily bring about a desired outcome? this is why many governments in democracies (arguably utilitarianism institutionalized) have economic problems, because they assume that their actions will always bring the consequences they desire in very uncertain situations like economics. therefore, it might be immoral based on its own theory, because its own acts in certain situations of uncertainty (i.e. economics, or any kind of matter whereby there isn't sufficient knowledge) might be void of any kind of reliability anyway. a theory based on principles not of consequences but rather principles of individual justice wouldn't run into these issues of uncertain consequences, because a general rule like "don't steal" isn't dependent on securing an outcome that might not be probable or possible. simply "not stealing" isn't requiring knowledge of wider circumstances because those circumstances are morally irrelevant if my property is justified by my own lone work done for it, not somebody else's pleasure or lack of pleasure regarding my ownership of it.

3) utilitarianism has no view of an individual - either you are part of the organ known as "the greatest number" or you are part of the organ known as "the lesser number". acts therefore can never be weighed in relation to individuals but must necessarily be weighed against the benefits of the greater number of people. for example, how can we say, in either act or rule utilitarianism, that me sleeping in on my day off is "moral" if it doesn't bring about general or direct consequences of pleasure for the greater number/society? I would argue "why can't I do what I want in my own spare time provided it's not actually hurting others?" but a utilitarian would say I ought to be putting myself to work anyway because the society or the greatest number deserves my work purely because I am a utility (as the name of the theory, again, beholds). also, in that group known as "the greatest number", there might either be criminals or saints, but they all deserve the same benefit purely for belonging to that largest group, so again, there is no account for what each individual deserves alone and in proportion to their deeds. . therefore, individuals cannot be regarded simply as individuals - they must be related to a bigger group, and hence, there is no actual individual life but purely communal life in some sense. individuals, like I said in point 1, are just tools, literally, and cannot do anything for their own benefit - it's always got to be for another's benefit. and also, because of that lack of individual distinction, there is no moral accuracy if we want a theory that accounts for justice which is more strong if we admit that different people deserve different things based on how "just" each one is in isolation.

I'd tend to say those were the most powerful points - but that fact of util. theory seeing people as just utilities for others is the biggest strike against it because basically our whole liberal notion of justice in western civilization rests on a rejection of this. even in democracies of utilitarian decision making we still typically reject taking away individuals' or minorities' rights, because we shouldn't collectivise everybody against their will or else there is no such thing as private life at all where people can get their own happinesses without taking it away from others like it's a dog-eat-dog competition. that's why utilitarianism without any kind of non-utilitarian qualification is weak.

i dont get how you would answer these ao2 quesions in single points
"pleasure iis the soul intinsc good" evaluate this view

what do you mean? how wouldn't you? by "single points" surely you don't mean solely one point of view for a whole 30 marker? you can have a foundation that essentially underpins multiple points, but you wouldn't argue that foundation as your sole point in the essay. there's nothing wrong with points feeding into one another and overlapping somewhat - that's actually good. they just can't be exactly the same, obviously

and "pleasure is the sole intrinsic good" is just a re-wording of the last question but through a more positive wording. instead of saying why it is or isn't "immoral", you're now saying how it is or isn't "the sole intrinsic good"

i mean the genral idea

i mean the genral idea

also for the question about imoral behaviour could you write the same answer for this question but just tweek it a bit "utlitarinisim promotes justice"

well you can do it, so long as your points that rely on a general point of view are nuanced. generally it's difficult to justify it *purely* on one viewpoint - I, for instance, talked about both justice and certainty in that last message.