Singer, Bentham and Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism was originally the genre of thought caused by Jeremey Bentham from the late 18th century to the early 19th century. John Stuart Mir continued to shape it into what we know today. Ultimately, Utilitarian thinking seems simple: all actions must be taken for greater profit. But it is obvious that as people deepen this concept more deeply it can only be achieved by the lifestyle that relies on common sense. In the next paragraph we will explore the history of Utilitarianism, the people who formed it, how it leads life, and how it relates to the life of the 21st century.

In this article I would like to compare the two types of utilitarianism. It is the theory of systematization by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) in the second half of the 18th century and the philosophy advocated by Peter Singer (1946-), the most obvious contemporary supporter. This is how the latter introduces the former in the "ethics" of Encyclopedia of Britannica: Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is correctly regarded as a father of contemporary Utilitarianism. At least in theory it is him that he developed the principle of utilitarianism as the basis of a unified comprehensive moral system in every living area. There has never been a complete and detailed ethical system consistently constructed from basic ethical principles. One of the positions of Bentham is honest and frank because it refuses to be confused with traditional morals and sophisticated society's opposition.

Under the guidance of Bentham and Sidgwick, Singer proposed a thorough utilitarian argument to determine the moral status. However, given the deep criticism of classical utilitarianism, the utility of singers is subtle. In other words, people are emphasizing the end of enjoying happiness and avoiding pain. The singer's preference for Utilitarianism holds that personal interest depends on that person's preference or value. In addition, in calculating general benefits, all sentient beings' preference gains are equal trade-offs: "The principle of equitably considering profits is like a pair of measures to measure profit fairly. Although combining similar interests, they did not take into account the benefits they were weighing "(1979, p. 19)

In the singer 's attack, it rebounded in the 1970' s. As a Bentham Utilitarian tradition philosopher, Singer considers the total amount produced by humans and animals - human and animal - the pain caused in this process - human and animal in all decisions. For him, the interests of humans and animals are equally unimportant. The value of life for humans is far greater than the value of life for living creatures without self-awareness. However, if some people do not do something to severely incompetent children, this should not be done for animals suffering from the same pain. It is a crime similar to racial discrimination for Syndis' s "speciesism" just because it is not a human being but ignores the interests of animals. Calling for a connection between humans and apes, Singer, Goodall etc. are seeking at least these creatures to be released from the experiment