Utilitarianism

This paper compares the thought of Miff and Mutahhari, particuiar/y their vie1vs of moral education, higher sentiments, and their common values. Itfurthermore argues that Miff and Mutahhari both provide a strong basis for a critique of the consumerivation of culture, ivhich often happens in a giobaiized econ

A double ambiguity has been charged against Rawls’s difference principle (DP). Is it Maximin, Leximin, or something else? Usually, following A. Sen, scholars identify DP with the so-called Leximin. One argues here that one has to distinguish 1° the Leximin, 2° the Maximin (as rule of justice formally analogous to the maximin rule of decision), represented by the figure in L of the perfectly substitutable goods, and 3° the genuine DP. When the augmentation of inequality benefits the worse off, only Pareto-strong improvements are permitted. Leximin would also permit Pareto-weak improvements too (after the first maximum D), where only the richest improves: from (2, 3) to (2, 5), say. This is forbidden by DP. With two classes, unlike Maximin, DP has no curve of indifference and is always decisive, as Leximin is. For undecisive Rules of Justice, which admit indifferent curves, I propose to add a lexically secondary rule, to break ties. That move is able to clarify the links and the differences between on the one hand Maximin alone, with its typical indifference curves in L, and on the other hand, the DP properly understood and the Leximin, which both have no indifferent curves. With two classes of persons (best off/worse off), DP appears more egalitarian than Leximin, because it's secondary rule is MinIn (Minimization of Inequality). But the intuition behind the distinction is that it cannot possible “fair” that only the best off improves in a productive social cooperation. 

SUBJECT & OBJECTIVES : Pleasure motivates humans in pleasant and unpleasant behaviors. Numerous ethical schools have discussed pleasure. Some schools have embraced hedonism. One of these schools is utilitarianism. In the Holy Qur’an, many verses about pleasure are mentioned. These verses are discussed in the form of resurrection, social reform, food and clothing, etc. Since Jeremy Bentham's principles of hedonism have had a great impact on philosophers, thinkers, social laws, and the culture and lifestyle of people, the present article is an explanation of pleasure from Jeremy Bentham's viewpoint and compares it with verses of the Qur’an. METHOD & FINDING : The library data collection and information processing method is descriptive-analytical critical. A finding of this article is to explain the similarities and differences of Jeremy Bentham's view compared to the verses of the Holy Qur’an. CONCLUSION : After the studies, we concluded that in both perspective hedonism and its excitatory aspect in humans with psychological hedonism, there are also points of disagreement: In the verses of the Qur’an, unlike Bentham, the pleasures of the hereafter and its preference over the pleasures of this world have been emphasized and the other that in the Qur’an, hedonism is not accepted in an absolute. Also, some of the blessings of the hereafter are mentioned in the Qur’an