'greatest happiness for the greatest number'-Geramy Bentham?

Question

Does this eliminate christian charity and altruism?does it promote a nietschien ubermensch?does it eradicate the need for true moral goodness?is it the aphorism apon which society today is built?opinions?

Answer 1

Jeremy Bentham is one of the founders of utilitarianism. Does this quote eliminate christian charity? No, charity often does a lot of good, and a utilitarian would be perfectly happy if everybody were charitable Christians or were altruistic people who gave to famine relief efforts. Of course there may be other ways in which utilitarianism and christianity would clash. but certainly not on the issue of charity or altruism.

No, it does not promote Nietzscheanism. Nietzsche had a lot of contempt for utilitarianism. The superman of Nietzsche is not a person who goes around trying to determine what makes the world the "happiest" most pain-free place it can be. In fact the ubermensch would probably kill such a person :). Nietzsche could not have cared less about the mass of humanity - the sheep who are led by their slave moralities. For him their happiness does not matter. For Bentham and the utilitarians, a person's happiness matters equally whether it be a common Christian or an elitist philosopher. Utilitarianism is very egalitarian. Nietzsche is the antonym of egalistarianism.

Does it eradicate the need for true moral goodness? I don't see how. You would have to explain what you mean by "true moral goodness." It does lead to what I consider more moral conslusions than traditional moral systems do. For example it places a moral duty on us to give to famine relief while rights based morality says that we have no such obligation. It also puts a moral value on animals since they also can feel happiness and pain, while rights theory and Christianity have traditionally ignored animals. I would say that, depending on your definition, utilitarianism is the necessary basis of "true moral goodness." Any moral theory has to justify itself on the utilitarian grounds that it will make the world a "better" place.

Some aspects of our society today is based on utilitarianism. It is very influential in economics I think. But its influence is very limited, especially in public discourse. The morality of today is "rights." And in everything from politics to medical ethics, acceptable statements are couched in the language of rights. We see "rights" as trump cards, and we are required to respect rights even when doing so leads to great suffering. Factory farms insist that they have a "right" to treat the animals as they do, even though the suffering of the animals would far outweigh any human happiness derived from their taste. People insist on a "right" to their property, even when they spent money on needless luxuries while children in the third world die from easily preventable diseases and malnutrition. So no, I do not think we are a utilitarian society.

Answer 2

Utilitarianism, as an ethical discipline (the greatest good. least harm) encapsulates the most common method employed in making tough decisions- the pro and con list- and because of this it does provide an important element in the ethical life of society. Unfortunately the most corporations and many governments are run by Egoists whose self interest is only partially satisfied by apparent altruism.

As to this approach eliminating the need for true moral goodness and Christian charity? No.
This is a personal approach not a systemic one. In order for society to espouse an ethical philosophy enough individuals within that society must take it up. Secondly, Utilitarianism is a tool that we use in focusing Christian charity and defining the path of moral goodness, so rather than replacing these virtues it enhances them.

Answer 3

i go along with the last commentator who said "no".

But i see in ur statement question a leaning towards criticism
of this position;and i see no reason why we should not,for
i think that this ideology that we should provide the"greatest
happiness for the greatest number"is thoroughly flawed;
and it shows not only in our political system but in our
educational system too.
Incidentally,it has close "ties" with a dreamlike state,what is
known as "the american dream"; for in even trying to provide
"the greatest number with their Greatest Happiness",we
have to predict,usually by sharing-a-vision or dream- what
should make the majority happy;really happy.
Im not in that business(and i recommend that others decline too) so i wont go-into details.
Suffice it to say that "christian (or any other religious)charity"
and reasonable altruism can do some good in an imperfect
world/life.
And we ALL have a duty,even a moral one,(to try and try again)to try to stop ourselves doing bad-ness to any number
of our fellows.

Answer 4

Jeremy Bentham.

Spelling aside, I think a Benthamite might say that the aphorism is perfectly consistent with Christian charity and altruism. The point, after all, is that I shouldn't act in any way that presumes that MY happiness is special. My happiness is part of the larger equation, but so is your happiness and the happiness of that injured fellow I might meet on a business trip near Samaria....

So, no, there's nothing Nietzschean about it. I think you might be raising a better point when you speak of "true moral goodness" though. For when most of us think of morality, we intuitively think of specific ties to specific people, such as those to whom we've made promises (a spouse, most obviously) or to those whom we helped into the world.

Bentham's formula implies that I have a general obligation to the whole world, to help it all become as happy as possible, but it seems to dissolve such more specific obligations, and as such it threatens harm to human nature, IMHO.

Answer 5

Average looking with a great personality.