Bentham
The eccentric Jeremy Bentham (who was mummified in neat clothes and still presided over the board meeting of University College London because he left his property to the board on condition that he attended all the board meetings) came to the conclusion that all theories, including moral theory and political theory, must be based on empirical facts. In his view, this fact must be that the principle of happiness occupies the first place in the humanities. In other words, all analysis of human behavior and all proposals for changing behavior must start from the fact that the motivation of human behavior is to pursue happiness and avoid pain. Of course, in this respect, Bentham is no different from Hobbes, although Bentham's conclusion is more free.
The theory that only happiness is (or should be) valuable is called hedonism. We have seen this philosophy before, not only in Hobbes, but also in Epicurus and Carricles. Bentham's innovation lies in his belief that hedonism is not necessarily egoism; It can be social In other words, a person's motivation to do things is not only for his own happiness, but also for the happiness of others (and should be). His social hedonism is embodied in his most famous motto: "The greatest happiness of the greatest number of people is the standard to measure right and wrong." The definition of "happiness" here is happiness. The combination of this principle and the principle of "one person, one vote" (that is, everyone has his own understanding of happiness) endows Bentham's utilitarian thought with obvious democratic color. Moreover, it also means that the moral value of an act depends only on the total amount of happiness or misfortune caused by the act. This view is sometimes called consequentialism (because it is the result that determines the value of behavior), which is contrary to Kant's moral view. According to Kant's moral view, the moral value of behavior depends on the intention of the actor, whether the motivation of the behavior fulfills the obligation of the actor, and whether the behavior conforms to the rational law.
Kant and bentham provided us with two main moral theoretical models used in western ethics. Unfortunately, the conclusions drawn from these two models sometimes contradict each other. When applied to some specific cases, utilitarianism sometimes seems to be much more reasonable than Kant's point of view. In other cases, Kant's view seems to be better than utilitarianism. For example, Kant's Ethics tells us never to lie. But what should we do if a man with a weapon and a mouthful of saliva asks us where bill jones is? If we know very well that telling the truth may lead to Jones' death, are we still obliged to do so? In this case, Bentham's principle is better: if we can prevent serious injury by lying, then lying is not immoral. However, let's think of another famous example: suppose you go to the hospital to visit a friend, and a utilitarian doctor chooses to sacrifice you and transplant organs necessary for life to five other patients. If they can't get an organ transplant immediately, they will die. What will happen? The doctor's behavior is based on the principle of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people", and may even be based on the principle of "one person, one vote". But most of us may think that Kant is right in this example. He thinks this kind of sacrifice is immoral.
We can see that Bentham thinks that happiness can be defined according to happiness, and he thinks that the study of happiness can be perfected and become a science. You can experience happiness according to the following seven factors. These factors can be explained according to the corresponding seven questions:
1. intensity (how strong is happiness? )
2. Duration (How long will happiness last? )
3. certainty (how real is happiness? )
4. proximity (how long does it take to experience this happiness? )
5. Reproduction (How much other happiness will one behavior bring? )
6. purity (to what extent is this happiness free from pain? )
7. breadth (how many people will experience this happiness? It is this factor that makes bentham's hedonism known as a kind of social hedonism. ])
No matter what kind of behavior is considered, people should analyze it according to the happiness brought by these seven factors, which Bentham called "happiness calculation method"
Bentham believes that after some practice, people can learn to use this calculation method intuitively, but before that, people should actually calculate all kinds of data as often as possible. (Indeed, it is said that Bentham himself uses happiness calculation method to choose whether to stay single or marry someone. [He is married! Try to use "calculation" when making a decision: whether to study for the mid-term exam of chemistry class or go to the seaside with some friends. Obviously, the beach party will be stronger in some factors (1, 3, 4, 6) and weaker in others (2, 5). Learning is weak in most factors, but strong in a few factors (2 and 5, if anyone is interested in your success in college, then 7 is also included). In the face of the thrill of tempting you to go to the seaside, do the advantages of studying outweigh the disadvantages? Of course, the guilt you experienced on the beach must also be taken into account. According to the principle of "one person, one vote", everyone must make a choice for himself.
Muller
John stuart mill strictly abided by Bentham's creed since he was a child. After a nervous breakdown at the age of twenty-one, he had some doubts about these views. Besides caring about other issues, he is also anxious about the choice of beach/chemistry, and perhaps even more anxious about the choice of six cases of beer/Shakespeare's sonnets. If an ordinary person chooses to watch the 49ers game on TV while reading Renaissance poems or drinking beer ... Yes, you can't force people to read poems or watch football games if they don't find it interesting. But under the democratic system and the principle of "one person, one vote", what will happen if people are given the choice of providing public expenses for Shakespeare, a university professor, or accepting tax rebates? Mill is worried about the worst, and thinks it is a bad omen for the progress of civilization. If we let ourselves follow the happiness calculation method, then the pig may be proved right: rolling in the mud may rank higher than studying philosophy.
Mill's solution to this problem is to point out that only those who are qualified to act as referees of these two competitive experiences can "vote" for one or the other. You can only vote if you know both beer and Shakespeare, or if you have played and read Plato. ) Mill's conclusion is that "some kinds of happiness are more desirable and valuable than others". We think he wants to read Shakespeare and Plato.
Mill thinks that he gave up the happiness calculation method because he wanted to define happiness directly by quality, not just by quantity. However, his critics accused Mill of completely abandoning the "utilitarian principle" (that is, the happiness principle) when asserting that some happiness is superior to others. They also accused him of elitism, which destroyed Bentham's democratic foundation of utilitarianism. In any case, Mill did leave us with some questions to ponder: Under the democratic system, must the principle of "one person, one vote" be applied to all levels of choice? If so, are democracy and elegant culture compatible?
In his most famous book on freedom, Mill outlined his laissez-faire theory. In some areas, the government has no right to interfere in citizens' lives. Mill's principle of liberalism stipulates: "It is only legitimate to impose power on members of a civilized body against their will when its sole purpose is to prevent harm to others." In other words, Mill opposed the patriarchal system of the state, under which the state told citizens what to do for his or her benefit. For Mill, there is no such thing as "victimless crime". If a man chooses to hide in his room and ride his Harley without wearing a helmet, hide in his room and drink bad wine or take drugs, go whoring or become a male prostitute, that's his own business, not the government's. (This is Mill's attempt to stipulate individual rights, which many critics think is the lack of utilitarianism. )
For moral reasons, maybe we should try our best to persuade this person to give up his wrong behavior, but as long as he doesn't hurt others, we have no right to prevent him from hurting himself by law. Contemporary critics point out that Mill's time may be easier to make this distinction than ours. In today's world, there is almost no pure private behavior. If you are admitted to the hospital because of a motorcycle injury, the tax I pay will provide you with care until you recover. )
Muller also believed in laissez-faire. He said: "laissez-faire ... should become a universal principle: unless it is necessary for some important interests, all acts that deviate from laissez-faire are some kind of evil." He believes that in most cases, the government should not interfere in commodity exchange, and the type and quality of products should be determined by the law of supply and demand.
Although Mill was considered a liberal at that time, in many ways, his views sounded more like what we now think of as political conservatism. But he imposed many restrictions on laissez-faire, which shows that he is not a pure supply school theorist. He excluded all products that buyers can't judge and "all products whose quality has a great relationship with society" from the scope of applying the laissez-faire policy. Muller said:
There are ... the value of some things can never be tested by market demand ... the people who need these things most want them last. This is especially true for those things that are mainly used to improve people's quality. An uneducated person can't be a qualified education judge.