Bentham seems to be governed by humanities regards for self interest. His utilitarian view, seemingly takes into account all these interests so that societies' views are similar overall. [Ch2.P56]

Bentham thinks/ as well as other philosophers that science can be brought in to answer moral questions from an empirical standpoint. Chp2.P57. This does not take into account the "retribution" or severity of the punishment distinguished by the courts.

Does not take into account integrity, and other natural pull factors. Such as jim in the jungle and killing innocents Ch2.P63

Seems to strip us of dignity. Bentham knows the pleasure of everything and the value of nothing. P68

Hazlitts .P71 - looks to say that pleasure can be given on masse when pain is inflicted upon. Example such as guy fawkes night and the whole country burns an effigy, to celebrate the capture and death of a person.

Questions arise, is this just not human nature and something that we cannot escape from. Something primal about our being which causes us to gain pleasure from some of the morally held viewpoints, after all, they are a social construct. Questions can be asked.

P69. Talks about the worth of religion. Some argue that religious encouragement to bring about pleasure is misguided. However i believe that the ending of suffering, no matter form is individual to that person should be explored. But the religious experience transcends pleasure some would say.

Same with philosphy and other subjects that may not seem pleasurable but people do it anyway, seemingly linking it to some greater good outside of pleasure. Evidently, moving forward society.

"It is better to be human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" P514 of set book. This hints that it takes into account human flaws and has a higher moral objection that they are not the centre of pleasure. The feelings and judgement of the experienced can be the only ones you can declare the worth of saying what is better pleasure than what pain. Thus someone who can be a fair judge of someone that has experienced both.

"Doctrine worthy of swine" P513 - pleasure treated as its highest, humanity is brought down to sensation of mere beasts.

Epicurus states that humans are able to experience pleasures far more than beasts, as well as Mill. P513

Mill believes in a higher form of pleasure, that separates us from animals (quality of pleasure, not quantity) P514. Bentham does not look into this. These higher pleasures (more morally different and higher form than animals) have a higher "score" of pleasure than the latter.

Push Pin - P76 - A simple game of billards, can be played by all. That music and arts are enjoyed by only the select few (higher faculties) so therefore it is to gratify those individuals. Bentham's view of inequality seems to be driving this statement.

Rely on the "higher" members of society to form the moral objectives of society. Is this acceptible.

Although we can consider them having higher faculities. they are still human and ultimately have certain elements that are open to degrading of such behaviour. Although without which how can a society function and what determins a moral code without the need for said individuals to know whats in the best interest?

Rule & Act Utilitarianism - Act out of the pleasure it gives maximum(Bentham), Rule to say that there are set rules by way of assessing whether the pleasure is beneficial (Mill) (eg. The wild flowers argument. P81)

He who tries to remain impartial, P515-17, is considered the most acceptable thing to do in utilitarianism. But one must draw in whether such moral impartially endeared people exist. Does the moral "judgement" fall outside the realm of human ability thus far. Such as from the divine perhaps?

Cannot overly simplify on how much pleasure is enough over pain (AUDIO)

What about different cultures, are we not judging what is considered higher principles (rule utilitarians) to say that in some societies this is considered morally acceptable (Death Penalties, Saudia Arabia/USA).