What is the difference between Mill’s qualitative hedonism and Bentham’s quantitative hedonism? Which is more plausible as a theory of well-being?
Hedonism is the idea that well-being of people comes about through pleasure. Pure hedonism is the thought that it arises through and only through pleasure and both Bentham and Mill advocate different approaches for which hedonism may be the basis of human well-being. Both Philosophers then go on to construct theories of morality on the basis of this idea such that what should be maximised in a moral dilemma is the cumulative welfare of all individuals as measured by their particular approach for deciphering which course of action will yield the most well-being for all. However, the focus of
If y is zero then total wellbeing is zero no matter what the value of z is but a small quantity of y can increase total welfare greatly is the z value is high. Crisp gives a slightly different account of this distinction between Bentham and Mill arguing that it is not the case that Mill values anything other than pleasure in order to establish a level of well-being. Indeed, according to Crisp, if he had done, he could not be considered a full hedonist. Instead, Mill makes a distinction is the nature of different kinds of pleasures some of which have more intrinsic value than others for well-being.
A Common criticism to both Bentham and Mill is that any theory which purports that to maximize well-being, a concept usually associated with ideas of a moral and idyllic life, one must maximize pleasure, a concept usually associated with amoral excess and indulgence, is repugnant and a theory only fit for a swine. However, Mill clearly and convincingly defends both himself and Bentham on this count arguing that to assume that human’s will search for the pleasures of a swine: those base pleasures of the body, is to misrepresent humans who value the higher pleasures of the mind. Moreover, the higher pleasures of the mind are often more likely to yield more pleasure than those purely of the body and thus Bentham’s