In utilitarianism, the line between pragmatism and morality is nonexistent as it asks individuals to consider themselves a part of a whole so they can act solely to benefit the larger unit. Essentially, Bentham's model determines whether an action is right or wrong based on the net amount of pleasure or pain it causes the involved parties. Furthermore, he specifies the various qualities that determine the value of the subsequent pleasure or pain, breaking them into seven categories that range from intensity to purity. However, with this model, Bentham makes some assumptions about the model's implementation, which causes problems in every day applications. In particular, the consideration of pleasure and pain of those beyond the individual presents
…show more content…
However, without a quantifiable scale to support it, the outlined steps merely wrangle and redefine the qualities of pleasure and pain, without providing a system to quantify them. This presents a dilemma between the precision of the argument and the pragmatism of applicability: a solution could be to use scales to quantify the sensations produced by certain actions or inaction. The inclusion of a system for quantification of emotions weakens the arguments soundness, as no numerical system could fully capture the complexity of emotions, while providing the necessary information to compare the consequences of actions with clarity. For example, at one point, Bentham asks to sum up all the pleasures on one side and the pains on another then compare them, which is difficult without a scale. Even a system as rudimentary as placing each of the qualities of a sensation on a scale of one to ten could significantly increase the applicability of Bentham's utilitarianism.ii
Granted this exchange is made for the sake of pragmatic implementation, Bentham's process for evaluating the correctness of actions requires quantifying the pleasure and pain produced by the initial action, then quantifying the pleasure and pain produced after the action. This second portion corresponds to the fecundity and impurity of the initial pleasure or pain. If the final pleasure sum, or net pleasure, is greater than the final pain sum, then it is a good action. Otherwise, it is a bad
However, without a quantifiable scale to support it, the outlined steps merely wrangle and redefine the qualities of pleasure and pain, without providing a system to quantify them. This presents a dilemma between the precision of the argument and the pragmatism of applicability: a solution could be to use scales to quantify the sensations produced by certain actions or inaction. The inclusion of a system for quantification of emotions weakens the arguments soundness, as no numerical system could fully capture the complexity of emotions, while providing the necessary information to compare the consequences of actions with clarity. For example, at one point, Bentham asks to sum up all the pleasures on one side and the pains on another then compare them, which is difficult without a scale. Even a system as rudimentary as placing each of the qualities of a sensation on a scale of one to ten could significantly increase the applicability of Bentham's utilitarianism.ii
Granted this exchange is made for the sake of pragmatic implementation, Bentham's process for evaluating the correctness of actions requires quantifying the pleasure and pain produced by the initial action, then quantifying the pleasure and pain produced after the action. This second portion corresponds to the fecundity and impurity of the initial pleasure or pain. If the final pleasure sum, or net pleasure, is greater than the final pain sum, then it is a good action. Otherwise, it is a bad