PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in Respect of the Principle of Utility



Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in Respect of the Principle of Utility

Introduction

Objective

The aim of the paper is to analyse the relevance of utilitarianism to inclusion in education. The paper would start by defining the theoretical concept of Utilitarianism. The concept would be discussed on theoretical footings presented and advocated by its pioneers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills. Discussions would initiate by giving historical foundations to the concept of utilitarianism, before advocacy by its primary pioneers. The next section would divulge in detail regarding the Classical Utilitarian approach. This section would present the concept in regards to its presentation by Bentham and Mills. Each of the scholar's theories would be presented and discussed in detail. This part would be followed by the essence of the paper which would present the theory of utilitarianism in regards to social policy and education. The final section of the paper would give arguments by various critiques that accentuate that the concepts of utilitarianism cannot be inclusive in education. Further, these arguments would be analysed to find the reasoning behind such negation of inclusion of utilitarianism in education.

Utilitarianism

Normative ethics constitute numerous theories. Utilitarianism is one such theory. Utilitarianism dictates that appropriate actions are those that maximize utility. This maximizing proposition is with regards to increasing happiness and conversely reducing suffering and other afflictions. The primary advocates of classic utilitarianism were Jeremy Bentham (1789), John Stuart Mill (1861) and Henry Sidgwick (1907) (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2012). The propositions in classic utilitarianism are considered hedonistic. The fundamental suggestion henceforth states an act to be morally right, only if that act/deed maximizes the 'good'. This maximization would be a differential between the 'total aggregate of good for all' and the 'total aggregate of bad for all'. This differential has to be greater in contrast to the benefits of an ill-assorted act that may be conducted by the concerned agent, at the time of action (Moore, 1912). Hence, Hedonism proposes pleasure to be the only basic good and conversely pain as the most essential bad. Both these assertions, in conjunction, implicate an action to be morally appropriate, only if the concerned action sources “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. It can be assumed on the above stated assertions that the theoretical concepts of utilitarianism are 'Consequentialist'. Henceforth, the development in the theories of utilitarianism in the 20th century has replicated a form of 'Consequentialism'. The term was coined by Anscombe, in his scholarly works in modern moral philosophy (Anscombe, 1958, pp. 12).

Utilitarianism, determines the moral worth of any given action with regards to its resultant outcomes. The theoretical moral debate is still prevalent with regards to the amount of consideration that has to be specified to intended consequences, predicted consequences and actual consequences. Jeremy Bentham in his book, A Fragment of Government, states the most fundamental axiom of utilitarianism, “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of ...