What do you think?
Rate this book
The Classical Utilitarians
This volume includes the complete texts of two of John Stuart Mill's most important works, Utilitarianism and On Liberty, and selections from his other writings, including the complete text of his "Remarks on Bentham's Philosophy." The selection from Mill's "A System of Logic" is of special relevance to the debate between those who read Mill as an Act-Utilitarian and those who interpret him as a Rule-Utilitarian. Also included are selections from the writings of Jeremy Bentham, founder of modern Utilitarianism and mentor (together with James Mill) of John Stuart Mill. Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation had important effects on political and legal reform in his own time and continues to provide insights for political theorists and philosophers of law. Seven chapters of Bentham's Principles are here in their entirety, together with a number of shorter selections, including one in which Bentham repudiates the slogan often used to characterize his philosophy "The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number." John Troyer's Introduction presents the central themes and arguments of Bentham and Mill and assesses their relevance to current discussions of Utilitarianism. The volume also provides indexes, a glossary, and notes.
311 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 2003
31 people are currently reading
232 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
Read
April 12, 2022dear john stuart mill,
why fix something if it ain’t broke?
sincerely,
a tired philosophy student
why fix something if it ain’t broke?
sincerely,
a tired philosophy student
April 27, 2022
1. What is this?
A Great book for basic learning about Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism -- greatest good for maximum number of people.
Concisely, "Cold-theory of Ethics"
2. So, What does Bentham say?
Introduces Bentham's writing starting with pleasure and pain.
Bentham introduces, principle of utility.
It states, actions would be approved or disapproved based on the outcome.
Bentham dives deep into on how to calculate happiness, pleasure, intensity of emotions.
Bentham says, ethics is the art of directing men's actions to production of greatest possible quality of happiness.
I am not sure if you can quantify happiness, emotions into mere numbers.
But, it's great that he is making an attempt.
He goes to crime and punishment, applies the principle of utility.
He dives deep into each properties, which was surprising.
Lastly, I was surprised to find, economic values are based on "Utilitarianism", e.g. GINI Coefficient.
3. What does Mill say?
In Utilitarianism, Summum bonum" is defined as following,
"Total net satisfaction of desires with everyone's desires with everyone's desires counting equally and with a value proportionate to their intensity."
After Bentham, Mill writes on Liberty and Utilitarianism.
I appreciated Mill's argument for Liberty.
Some of the questions he raises were difficult to answer.
He argues for Freedom of speech.
Mill says -- a lot of people try to silence another person's view if they do not like him or disagree with him.
Furthermore, I am not sure where the dividing line is on liberty of an individual and Society?
Mill also writes about Calvinists, Mormonism on Liberty.
Some of the religious sect would not agree with the society, could the majority force them?
Mill theory of human nature is, Man is imperfect, which is influenced by Christian thought.
A lot of modern arguments were discussed in past.
I was surprised by his examples.
For example: If a Man becomes a thief, he is not a thief because he did it, it is the conditions of society that makes him do it.
Recommending for anyone, to learn about the basics of Utilitarianism.
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
A Great book for basic learning about Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism -- greatest good for maximum number of people.
Concisely, "Cold-theory of Ethics"
2. So, What does Bentham say?
Introduces Bentham's writing starting with pleasure and pain.
Bentham introduces, principle of utility.
It states, actions would be approved or disapproved based on the outcome.
Bentham dives deep into on how to calculate happiness, pleasure, intensity of emotions.
Bentham says, ethics is the art of directing men's actions to production of greatest possible quality of happiness.
I am not sure if you can quantify happiness, emotions into mere numbers.
But, it's great that he is making an attempt.
He goes to crime and punishment, applies the principle of utility.
He dives deep into each properties, which was surprising.
Lastly, I was surprised to find, economic values are based on "Utilitarianism", e.g. GINI Coefficient.
3. What does Mill say?
In Utilitarianism, Summum bonum" is defined as following,
"Total net satisfaction of desires with everyone's desires with everyone's desires counting equally and with a value proportionate to their intensity."
After Bentham, Mill writes on Liberty and Utilitarianism.
I appreciated Mill's argument for Liberty.
Some of the questions he raises were difficult to answer.
He argues for Freedom of speech.
Mill says -- a lot of people try to silence another person's view if they do not like him or disagree with him.
Furthermore, I am not sure where the dividing line is on liberty of an individual and Society?
Mill also writes about Calvinists, Mormonism on Liberty.
Some of the religious sect would not agree with the society, could the majority force them?
Mill theory of human nature is, Man is imperfect, which is influenced by Christian thought.
A lot of modern arguments were discussed in past.
I was surprised by his examples.
For example: If a Man becomes a thief, he is not a thief because he did it, it is the conditions of society that makes him do it.
Recommending for anyone, to learn about the basics of Utilitarianism.
Deus Vult,
Gottfried
March 11, 2016
Bentham is a little dry, but Mill is particularly fascinating. If you have questions about how morality can exist without religion, this is a great read.
October 14, 2016
Utilitarians are like London buses: You wait for years to encounter them and then two turn up at once. I am not sure why it was so hard to track down single works by Bentham, but I must say that I am glad I first encountered him in this anthology, as I suspect that a "Collected Works" would have driven me to despair. Bentham is a little hard to read. John Stuart Mill, on the other hand, is a joy to read, and in particular his "On Liberty" appears here in, as far as I am able to judge, its entirety. This is a piece that everyone interested in the Western libertarian tradition must cover at some stage.
The book was marred a little by an introduction written by a philosopher who seemed set on mounting his own tendentious demolition of utilitarianism, rather than in introducing the masters with which this book is concerned. Worse, his attempt does not seem to stand up very well in hindsight once one has read Mill, who also has criticisms for Bentham but to my mind seems to provide a very solid "improved" version of utilitarianism.
Bentham himself, apparently very much an eccentric and possibly a narcissist to boot, apparently regretted his phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" as oversimplifying the difficulty of a utilitarian morality or legislative regime. As Mill explains, it is easy to misapply the term and its concept at different levels of abstraction or of application. To explain, it is possible to come up with different solutions to optimum happiness of outcome when drafting laws and when judging concrete cases. A law which, in general, leads to a good compromise can lead to injustice in specific cases. Mill seems to be saying - and I tend to agree - that a truly utilitarian approach must favour the drafting and consistent pursuance of general laws which provide the best compromise on outcomes, and accept that each individual case will not be perfectly served. To build precedent on individual cases would be to create a chaos of little contradictions.
Mill's account of liberty, in addition to its elegance of expression, seems to say most of what one could ever want to hear on the subject. Its fundamental essence is that the state has no damned business sticking its nose into your affairs unless to prevent harm to others. The US Religious Wrong could do with re-reading this right now, as there is a rising tendency in public life to seek to repress consensual sexual heterodoxy, not to mention recreational drug use and many other activities odious to religious busybodies, where the law has no business sticking its nose. But I am preaching.
A book of two halves plus an irritating introduction, the latter half of which more than makes its purchase worthwhile.
The book was marred a little by an introduction written by a philosopher who seemed set on mounting his own tendentious demolition of utilitarianism, rather than in introducing the masters with which this book is concerned. Worse, his attempt does not seem to stand up very well in hindsight once one has read Mill, who also has criticisms for Bentham but to my mind seems to provide a very solid "improved" version of utilitarianism.
Bentham himself, apparently very much an eccentric and possibly a narcissist to boot, apparently regretted his phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" as oversimplifying the difficulty of a utilitarian morality or legislative regime. As Mill explains, it is easy to misapply the term and its concept at different levels of abstraction or of application. To explain, it is possible to come up with different solutions to optimum happiness of outcome when drafting laws and when judging concrete cases. A law which, in general, leads to a good compromise can lead to injustice in specific cases. Mill seems to be saying - and I tend to agree - that a truly utilitarian approach must favour the drafting and consistent pursuance of general laws which provide the best compromise on outcomes, and accept that each individual case will not be perfectly served. To build precedent on individual cases would be to create a chaos of little contradictions.
Mill's account of liberty, in addition to its elegance of expression, seems to say most of what one could ever want to hear on the subject. Its fundamental essence is that the state has no damned business sticking its nose into your affairs unless to prevent harm to others. The US Religious Wrong could do with re-reading this right now, as there is a rising tendency in public life to seek to repress consensual sexual heterodoxy, not to mention recreational drug use and many other activities odious to religious busybodies, where the law has no business sticking its nose. But I am preaching.
A book of two halves plus an irritating introduction, the latter half of which more than makes its purchase worthwhile.
Read
December 20, 2025“ I do not mean to assert that the promotion of happiness should be itself the end of all actions, or even of all rules of action. It is the justification, and ought to be the controller, of all ends, but is not itself the sole end.
There are many virtuous actions, and even virtuous in modes of action (though the cases are, I think, less frequent than is often supposed by which happiness in the particular instance is sacrificed, more pain being produced than pleasure. But conduct of which this can be truly asserted, admits of justification only because it can be shown that on the whole more happiness will exist in the world, if feelings are cultivated which will make people, in certain cases, regardless of happiness. I fully admit that this is true: that the cultivation of an ideal nobleness of will and conduct, should be to individual human beings an end, to which the specific pursuit either of their own happiness or of that of others (except so far as included in that idea should, in any case of conflict, give way. But I hold that the very question, what constitutes this elevation of character, is itself to be decided by a reference to happiness as the standard. The character itself should be, to the individual, a paramount end, simply because the existence of this ideal nobleness of character, or of a near approach to it, in any abundance, would go further than all things else towards making human life happy; both in the comparatively humble sense, of pleasure and freedom from pain, and in the higher meaning, of rendering life, not what it now is almost universally, puerile and insignificant-but such as human beings with highly developed faculties can care to have.”
There are many virtuous actions, and even virtuous in modes of action (though the cases are, I think, less frequent than is often supposed by which happiness in the particular instance is sacrificed, more pain being produced than pleasure. But conduct of which this can be truly asserted, admits of justification only because it can be shown that on the whole more happiness will exist in the world, if feelings are cultivated which will make people, in certain cases, regardless of happiness. I fully admit that this is true: that the cultivation of an ideal nobleness of will and conduct, should be to individual human beings an end, to which the specific pursuit either of their own happiness or of that of others (except so far as included in that idea should, in any case of conflict, give way. But I hold that the very question, what constitutes this elevation of character, is itself to be decided by a reference to happiness as the standard. The character itself should be, to the individual, a paramount end, simply because the existence of this ideal nobleness of character, or of a near approach to it, in any abundance, would go further than all things else towards making human life happy; both in the comparatively humble sense, of pleasure and freedom from pain, and in the higher meaning, of rendering life, not what it now is almost universally, puerile and insignificant-but such as human beings with highly developed faculties can care to have.”
October 3, 2018
liberal ... enlightenment ... theory
nonono
nonono
November 19, 2019
I LOVE ON LIBERTY. Bentham's okay too.
May 16, 2025
Mill is a funny guy.
March 25, 2016
The utilitarian is a 'cold-blooded' theory. It does not care about how every individual could be happy but they focus on the overall happiness. They calculate and calculate and calculate possible consequences so it is problematic since the core arguement base on the assumptions.
It is possible to kill the homeless in order to donate their organs so that more people can be saved in this respect.
The political theories should have essential ethical concerns, I suppose. Of course, however, utilitarians are not complete monsters but still the conception of ultimate good and utility varies from society to society. So the key word here is the pleasure. How about a mazochist? They drive pleasure from pain while utilitarian describes the pleasure as absence of the pain. You see there is this contradiction in utilitarian point of view. Hence I like the emphasis on intellect pleasure. The intellect and bodily pleasures considered as the two types of pleasures and intellect is distinguishing the human beings from the animals (mentioned as the swine in the book).
It is possible to kill the homeless in order to donate their organs so that more people can be saved in this respect.
The political theories should have essential ethical concerns, I suppose. Of course, however, utilitarians are not complete monsters but still the conception of ultimate good and utility varies from society to society. So the key word here is the pleasure. How about a mazochist? They drive pleasure from pain while utilitarian describes the pleasure as absence of the pain. You see there is this contradiction in utilitarian point of view. Hence I like the emphasis on intellect pleasure. The intellect and bodily pleasures considered as the two types of pleasures and intellect is distinguishing the human beings from the animals (mentioned as the swine in the book).
Read
April 13, 2009This book, again like Mill's "Utilitarianism" is suitable for idiots and does not deserve a rating. Bentham and Mill do not know what they are talking about and need lessons and Kantianism and Deontology.
September 25, 2008
So far so good,
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews