Minor question about Bentham and his hedonic calculus

Whether it's pushpin, poetry or neither, you can discuss it here.

Minor question about Bentham and his hedonic calculus

Postby Ubuntu on 2012-03-19T15:45:00

Bentham argued that the end goal of ethics should be the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and the number of people affected by an action or policy (extent) was part of his hedonic calculus. Does this mean that Bentham would have preferred universe A, which has 100 people who will experience a collective 100 points of pleasure for 1 year, over universe B which has 25 people who will experience a collective 200 points of pleasure for 2 years, would he factor in the number of beneficiaries as opposed to just the intensity and duration of the actual pleasure itself? Or was 'extent' just his way of aggregating the sum total of pleasure among everyone affected by an action? Just curious.

Also, do you think that propinquity (the nearness or remoteness of the pleasure/pain to be felt), fecundity (the probability that the pleasure will lead to more pleasure) and the purity (the probability that pain will lead to more pain) is necessary? Unless the remoteness of expected pleasure/pain plays a role in how likely it is to occur, why does it matter when it occurs as long as it does? Instead of calculating whether or not the immediate pleasure or pain by X indirectly causes more pleasure/pain, can't we just factor in any indirect pleasure or pain caused to begin with (instead of saying X will cause 5 points of pain, then later on, that pain will indirectly cause another 20 points of pain etc., can't we just say that X will cause 25 points of pain)?

Ubuntu
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:30 am

Re: Minor question about Bentham and his hedonic calculus

Postby Brian Tomasik on 2012-03-20T08:31:00

I recall reading that Bentham later revised his statement to just "the greatest happiness," since as you say, it could be the case that a strongly affected minority outweighs a mildly affected majority. I can't remember where I read this -- maybe in one of Singer's articles or on Wikipedia.

As far as your second paragraph, yes, your way is simpler. Presumably Bentham would have agreed, and he was just saying it in a roundabout manner?
User avatar
Brian Tomasik
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:10 am
Location: USA

Re: Minor question about Bentham and his hedonic calculus

Postby Arepo on 2012-03-20T10:12:00

I get the impression Bentham wasn't familiar with the concept of expected value, and was basically trying to describe it.
"These were my only good shoes."
"You ought to have put on an old pair, if you wished to go a-diving," said Professor Graham, who had not studied moral philosophy in vain.
User avatar
Arepo
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:49 am

Re: Minor question about Bentham and his hedonic calculus

Postby RyanCarey on 2012-03-20T12:19:00

Yeah, I agree with Arepo. It reads like a description of an expected value calculation. In this day and age, his list of seven steps of the hedonic calculus are useful as a list of considerations not to be omitted from an expected value calculation.
You can read my personal blog here: CareyRyan.com
User avatar
RyanCarey
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:01 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Minor question about Bentham and his hedonic calculus

Postby Pablo Stafforini on 2012-03-20T12:26:00

Brian is right: Bentham eventually became aware that the formula 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'--which he borrowed from David Hartley--implied that there were two independent maximanda and as a consequence dropped the second part. This is described in his autobiographical 'Article on Utilitarianism', included in Deontology, Together with A Table of the Springs of Action and Article on Utilitarianism (Oxford, 1983), which is unfortunately not available online.

As for Ubuntu's second question, my understanding is that it is unclear whether Bentham discounted future pleasures and pains merely because they were in the future. I recall that Derek Parfit referred to Bentham's six 'marks of pleasures and pains' and interpreted Bentham as endorsing temporal discounting somewhere in Reasons and Persons.
"‘Méchanique Sociale’ may one day take her place along with ‘Mécanique Celeste’, throned each upon the double-sided height of one maximum principle, the supreme pinnacle of moral as of physical science." -- Francis Ysidro Edgeworth
User avatar
Pablo Stafforini
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:07 am
Location: Oxford


Return to General discussion