Aristotle and Utilitarianism Is Actually

Aristotle and Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is actually a philosophy that can be split into two strands. Essentially it refers to the utility of the end result, namely where actions are judged in a pragmatic way according to the amount of pleasure they accord the greatest quantity of people. When dealing with the way Aristotle may, or may not have reacted, in regards to utilitarianism, formulating our opinion is not so simple, since utilitarianism involves a debate on how it is best understood. Mill and Benthams's Principle of Utility for instance, differed in important ways. Mill stated that it was the consequences of the good or bad action to the individual that determined morality of that action, whilst Bentham proposed moral consequence arising from "the greatest good for the greatest number of people." Pain and pleasure, he wrote, are our masters; and the hedonistic calulus should be used to determine this greatest happiness principle (Dinwiddy, 1989). Both Mill and Bentham advocate a system of ethics that depended on dissemination of the greatest amount of good to the largest quantity of people, but they differ in that their recommendation of analysis of advantages of the act lie in the need to consider the best that exists (a) for the recipient (Mill), (b) for the greatest majority of people (Bentham).

Differences between the two theorists lie, too, in the fact that Bentham offers the general principle of utility. He presents no rules as Mill did, and, in this manner, the differences between Mill and Bentham could best be summarized by defining Bentham as an act utilitarian and Mill as a rule utilitarian (Rosen, 2003). An act utilitarian would use thought processes to determine the greatest accruing utility, whereas a rule utilitarian would calculate according to a set of rules by which means the greatest amount of until could be concluded.

According to Aristotle, the greatest good is excellence of character. He came to this via the realization that all humans seek eudemonia, i.e. contentment and, therefore, life consists of achieving this contentment. In this way, Aristotle and utilitarianism meet in that both affirm that humans seek happiness. However, for Aristotle happiness (or more correctly to him eudemonia that does not precisely consist of 'pleasure' but rather comes closes to the meaning of 'contentment') consisted of in three ascending levels: (1) a life dedicated to brute pleasures, (2) the pursuit of fame, and (3) the unselfish pursuit of contemplation. This is what God does so this, Aristotle concluded, is ideal contentment. Furthermore, a human is distinguished from animal by virtue of his reason (logos). A person is, therefore, happiest when he is using his distinctive attitude because he is then fulfilling his life's purpose (Bostock, 2000).

Utilitarianism, when taken to its extreme, may conflict against the dictates of reason. For instance, when the majority may prefer the pleasures of the moment thereby deferring possibly more authentic long-term pleasures for those that are short-lived. The minority would benefit from the long-term pleasures, but since utilitarianism asserts that we go for the greatest good, one may defer to the majority (Smart, 1973). This, according to Aristotle, may well militate against reason, and Aristotle would therefore find fault with the utilitarian's conclusion.

Aristotle also insists on excellence of character and being of great soul (magnanimous), which is the level deserving of highest praise. A person also has to be just (Bostock, 2000). Utilitarianism can come into difficulties in that it may, paradoxically, be harmful when it focuses on the influence of pleasure or pain to the greatest amount of people sacrificing the pleasure of the minority in the process. History accords us many instances in which the pleasure of a few has been sacrificed in order to accommodate the happiness of a majority. This, to Aristotle may not have been just. In conclusion, even though Aristotle agreed that humans seek happiness and that happiness is our greatest good, it seems to me that utilitarians and Aristotle differ in their disparate ways of defining happiness and, consequently, in their different prescriptions of achieving this happiness. To utilitarians, the prescription lies in helping the greatest amount of people achieve the greatest amount of happiness. Happiness is not specified, but it seems to mean physical happiness. Aristotle acknowledges that different levels of happiness are available to the human, but he sees the most intense and highest level of happiness as consisting in that called 'eudemonia' i.e. A sort of bliss or contentment where the highest kind can be achieved via contemplation.