Is Bentham's Hedonistic Calculus Practicable?
By Heather Ferguson <AddysmomF@netscape.net>
Bentham’s hedonistic calculus cannot be practicable. Bentham attempted to put numerical values on an individual act (pleasurable or painful) using the following four circumstances: 1) its intensity, 2) its duration, 3) its certainty or uncertainty, and 4) its propinquity or remoteness. For an act to predict future acts, Bentham used two additional circumstances: 5) its fecundity and 6) its purity. In order for Bentham’s hedonistic calculus to predict future behaviors, the measurements must be valid, reliable, and agree with a known standard. Bentham’s circumstances lack validity and reliability. Validity indicates that a measure indeed measures what it is intended to measure. Reliability of a measure indicates that a test can produce consistent results over time. To assess or put a numerical value on an act of pleasure or pain, with the exception of an act’s duration, Bentham’s circumstances would have to rely on self-report measures. Self-reports would have to be used because not all acts of pleasure and pain can be observed overtly. Self-report measures are highly subjective because one cannot know for certain that another person is telling the truth, or merely reconstructing what they believe is the truth. In other words, one cannot be 100% positive that a person can give an accurate account or assessment of an act. An example to illustrate how subjective self-reports are would be three people giving three different accounts of the same incident in police reports. The subjectivity associated with self-reports substantially lowers both the validity and reliability of any measure. If a measure is not valid and reliable, it cannot be used to predict behavior, and is useless. A useless and unpredictable measure of any kind is not practicable.
To submit a comment, click here.
Eric Howell <grayghost13@hotmail.com>Interesting Points. Good Job!
Kimberly Pitts <KLP103@hotmail>I disagree with Bentham, but I enjoyed the paper.
Crystal Gray <crystalg32@hotmail,com>Good paper, I agree.
Travis Galloway <hyperdedo@hotmail.com>I don't believe I was familiar with this before reading the topic so I'm not sure how much help I can be... however, I agree with you mostly. This however does seem to be a decent starting point or at least a method to get results we can pick apart. I'd would like to see some examples of the formula accually in use. Nice work...
Matt Wright <surfski8@hotmail.com>good points
Danny Frady <garydfrady@hotmail.com>I agree!
Cynthia Glanton <cynthia_glanton>Good paper and ideas!
Lee Archie <larchie@philosophy.lander.edu>Comments will remain open until Nov. 10
Will Mulkey <wrmulkey@hotmail.com>This was an interesting way of doing things. Good Paper!
Karen Long <karen_long@email.com>I have no idea what Betham's caculus-thingy is, but I did enjoy reading, even though I could barely follow it.
nichole vernon <nichole317@excite.com>good job , heather
Comments Closed <11.11.01>Further comments are voluntary.
jason stansill <jasonstansill@hotmail.com>I thought that your paper was really good.
Wendy Garner <wlg51@backroads.net>good paper
Chad Williams <czm_1@hotmail.com>Well said, indeed.
Eric Doyle Knight <frruita@hotmail.com>Good approach. I'm impressed. I think coming at this topic from a somewhat scientific or objective stance, analyzing it as a method in respect to validity and reliability, was just great. However, while what you've said is evident and valid, I tend to think that the Hedonistic Calculus has validity if not objectively and precisely, then intuitively. I have found I subconsciously do something similar to this instinctively when making a decision. Its not entirely precise, but I think its better than not considering the possibilities.