In contrast to Bentham, John Stuart Mill argued that happiness or pleasure should be understood:
A. quantitatively
B. qualitatively
C. as the same for all people
D. as the absence of pain only
I am stuck between A and B, but leaning toward B.
I agree with B.
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/utilitarianism/section2.rhtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Jeremy_Bentham
To determine the correct answer to this question, we should examine the views of Bentham and John Stuart Mill on happiness or pleasure.
Jeremy Bentham, the philosopher associated with utilitarianism, argued that happiness should be understood quantitatively. According to Bentham, the principle of utility holds that actions are right when they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. He believed that pleasure could be measured in terms of its intensity, duration, certainty, and extent. In Bentham's view, the more intense, long-lasting, and widely spread pleasure is, the greater its value.
However, John Stuart Mill, a consequentialist philosopher and a follower of Bentham, introduced a subtle modification to Bentham's theory. Mill argued that happiness should be understood qualitatively, leaning more towards option B. He proposed that it is not just the quantity of pleasure that matters but also the quality. Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures, stating that some pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others. Higher pleasures, such as intellectual or cultural pursuits, were considered more valuable than lower pleasures, such as physical delights.
Therefore, based on the arguments put forth by John Stuart Mill, the correct answer is B. pleasure should be understood qualitatively.