1. Utilitarianism does not see qualitative difference between pleasures. This aspect was overcome by J.S. Mill. He rejects Benthamite premise that quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry.
Rather, he holds that as a source of pleasure poetry is much higher than pushpin or any other game. As he observes “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied: better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
2. C.B. Macpherson points at the contradiction in this view. There is tension between man as a desire of utility and man as enjoyer or developer of his powers.
3. John Rawls criticizes it on grounds of fairness. While calculating the aggregate good, it neglects the good of the least advantaged.
Image Source: freesoftwaremagazine.com
As a result, utilitarianism treats some individual only as means towards end of others. It is incompatible with the conception of social cooperation among free and equal individuals for mutual advantage and with the idea of reciprocity implicit in a well ordered society.
4. In its practical connotation, utilitarianism and its hedonistic calculus received serious setbacks. The appalling miseries and contradictions in societies saved way for welfare, interventionist state as espoused by T.W. Green and Lord Keynes.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Even though the liberal democratic societies adopted welfare model, its effects were not very optimistic.
Growing economic burden and political apathy failed to deliver results. The regulation of property hampered private initiative and enterprise. As a result, a new school of thought emerged in the liberal tradition, known as Libertarianism or Neo- Liberalism.