Pretty Orange Dignos Pelayo | BSA2

Date: 03/17/2022

I. Look for the meaning of the following terms in relation to the Principle of Utilitarianism:

1. Greatest Happiness - refers to the experience of greatest pleasure for the greatest number of
persons, even at the expense of some individual rights.

2. Moral Right - take precedence over legal rights. Meaning, when legal rights seems to be unjust
and deserves violation, it is but praise worthy to suffer legal punishments for
violating it, in order to achieve higher moral good. Therefore, moral right
precedes legal ones and any violation toward it is considered as an act of
injustice.

3. Intent - indicates the purpose of the agent. In utilitarianism, it is disregarded as it is viewed

invaluable than that of the consequence for the highest number of people. Thus, intention
doesn’t matter. What matters is the greatest pleasure for the greatest number.

4. Justice - is defined by Mill as respect for right directed toward society’s pursuit for the greatest
number. For Mill, an act is justifiable when it serves general happiness.

5. Utility - simply means “usefulness”. Thus, in application of Utilitarianism, it means when a thing
or an action is useful and is directed towards experiencing greatest pleasure over pain for
greatest number of people, then, it is good. In short, the goodness or badness of an action
is based upon its usefulness.

6. Higher Pleasure - is a kind of pleasure expressly designated by Mill from lower base ones.
Higher pleasure are the ones humans naturally desire. These are the pleasures
that are actually within our grasp and is beneficial to us.

7. Rights - are a valid claim on society and are justified by utility.

8. Pleasure - equates to happiness and is viewed as justifiably good in the principle of utilitarianism.

9. Base pleasure - are those kind of pleasures that are mostly and quantitatively for animals. These
are the pleasures that are highly pleasurable for the life of an animal but is
considered base for a human person.

10. Legal rights - are those rights construed to us by law. In relation to utilitarianism, Mill clearly
states that when legal rights are not “morally justified” according to the greatest happiness
principle, then, it can be neither observed nor respected.
II. Answer the following questions:

1. Who is Jeremy Bentham? Who is John Stuart Mill?

- Jeremy Bentham is a utilitarian thinker who strongly advocates economic freedom, women’s
rights and separation of church and the state. Also, he advocates for the abolition of death penalty
and slavery. Moreover, Bentham argues that our actions are governed by 2 masters – pleasure and
pain. He noted that, we tend to decide what ought to be done and not based on these masters and
our choices are fastened on the thrones of these said two masters. Now, Bentham presents us with
the idea that everything that makes us happier and gives us the highest pleasure is good while
those that leads us to pain is bad. Thus, our actions are good or bad based on whether or not it
would give us either pleasure or pain.

- On the other hand, John Stuart Mill is the son of James Mill who is a student, a disciple and a
loyal devotee of Jeremy Bentham. Mill supports Bentham’s principle of utility and later on, even
published his own views toward the said theory.

2. Discuss the similarities and differences of Bentham’s and Mill’s principle of utilitarianism.

- Well, Bentham and Mill are famous and intellectual advocates of the principle of utility.
However, as what I have understood, there was a time when Mill dissents Bentham’s views. This
was on understanding the nature of pleasure and pain. For Bentham, he provides us with the
framework “felicific calculus” wherein you can calculate the pleasure that your actions would
produce. In this idea, the factors like intensity, length of experience, certainty and uncertainty of
pleasure is measured. However, Mill disagreed to this. He argued that pleasure shouldn’t just be
viewed quantitatively but also qualitatively. With this he promotes the 2 kinds or pleasure based
on quality – the higher pleasures and base pleasures. In his further explanation, Mill clearly
explained that animals also experience pleasure and as for the human perspective the highly
pleasurable life for animals are but base only for humans. Thus, as humans, we naturally desire
for higher pleasure ones because these are those that are actually within our grasp and are
beneficial to us. He proved this by giving a logical statement saying, we would rather be a human
being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; we would rather we Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied. Because, pig and fools only knew the one side of the coin while a human and Socrates
knows both.
III. Answer the following questions in full sentences. Use your own words.

1. Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are more basketball fans, than to build a
hospital because there are fewer sick people?

- No. Well, there’s this saying that became my strength before. It was Jean Cocteau
saying, “Don’t confuse the truth with the opinion of the majority”. This means that, majority is
not always right. If you choose to build the basketball court just because there are more
beneficiaries to it than building the hospital, do you think it is right? Do you think it is ethical?
For me, utilitarianism isn’t always applicable. For me, when making a decision, the choice should
not be based on the “size” of people affected rather on the “nature” of the problem people faced.
I can really relate to this because I have experienced this before.
That’s why, in my judgement, when we would come to a point wherein we are
presented with varying options, we must choose the nature rather the size of the 2 sides affected.
Because size is merely quantitative while nature is qualitative. And in choosing, “quality” is more
important that “quantity”.

2. When is it justifiable to torture suspected criminals?

- For me, when the torture here means providing punishments such as imprisonment or
the obligation to pay civil or criminal damages, I think it is justifiable to torture “suspected
criminal” whenever they violate legal and moral principles. But, let’s make it clear that the torture
must only happen after the violation. Meaning, when they are merely suspected, we don’t have
the right to judge them. Thus, the punishment should be given only when crime is proved not just
presumed.