Jeremy Bentham And Utilitarianism

During the late 18th century, Jeremy Bentham conceived the idea that human actions are driven by the amount of pleasure one may feel by completing the action. Known as utilitarianism, it states that pleasure is the main motivational force of all actions. Ideally, a morally good action would yield an optimal amount of pleasure for the most amount of people. Bentham stated that pleasure is a product of good actions, and that the value of an action is based off of how much total pleasure it can create. He created a system that determines how pleasurable an activity is based on certain criteria. Those criteria being; intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, and purity. One would use these criteria to rate the pleasure on a scale …show more content…
It is said that the twenty Indians were protesting against the government, and were chosen at random to be executed. The executioner gives Jim a choice between killing one Indian, and allowing the others to live, or do nothing and have all the Indians die. According to the utilitarian philosophy, one must execute the morally good action, which in turn produces the most amount of pleasure for the most amount of people. In this scenario, Jim killing one of the people would achieve this. His actions would save nineteen others, thus producing the most amount of pleasure in the situation. By saving the most amount of people, Jim is performing the foremost moral decision. Although killing someone is arguably one of the most immoral actions one can commit, he in turn is aiding nineteen others to survive. If he were to actively do nothing, it could be said that his actions are akin to killing twenty Indians. Being actively passive in the situation would lead to a greater number of deaths, which in turn would create the most amount of displeasure. If act in a passive manner, it could be said that he is choosing the worst moral choice as he is letting the most amount of people die.
Even though he may feel displeasure from killing one person, the satisfaction of saving nineteen others is better than letting twenty people die. Therefore, from the philosophical utilitarian perspective, …show more content…
Holding on to the utilitarian philosophy, I would foresee myself being able to carry the burden of taking a person's life in order to save numerous others. Focusing on helping the most amount of people survive, I would do what is necessary, and execute one of the Indians. The most logical thing to do is to deem which of the people has lived the most immoral life, and choose them as the victim. Although knowing that this is highly unfair, and doing something which no person should do, placing a value on others lives, I hope that I would do what is necessary to help the most amount of people in the situation. Contrary to what I hope I would do, in reality I feel as though I would probably be crushed under the weight of the idea of taking someone’s life, and ultimately do nothing. I have never been in a similar situation, so of course this is all speculation, but I doubt I would be able to take another’s life under the circumstances. I would more than likely allow all twenty of the people to die, and spend a majority of my time in South America convincing myself that I had no choice, or that I couldn’t have done anything. Both ideas of how I would deal in the situation are completely possible, I but I believe I am more inclined to act passively with the current information