Why Is Increasing Pleasure Is More Important Than Ending Pain

‘Increasing pleasure is more important than ending pain and suffering.’ How far would utilitarian’s agree with this statement? A utilitarian’s opinion on increasing pleasure rather than ending pain would depend upon the severity of the case being assessed. Although utilitarianism is used to decide whether or not in theory carrying out an act will bring about more pleasure, some utilitarian’s may argue that there are cases of suffering which require more serious attention, to put an end to that pain rather than allowing it to continue in order to attend to a act which is already bringing about happiness. The idea of achieving increasing pleasure would appeal to a utilitarian as in theory the whole of utilitarianism is based on this aim. Some utilitarian’s may argue that despite a lot of acts having the potential to cause pain, the suffering of a few is a small price to pay for the happiness of the overall majority. An example of this is a just war, although the few involved may suffer the end of it and the solution will lead to the happiness of many. As well as this, there may be situations that occur in which the pain caused is minimal and
In terms of Mill and applying his theory, if it is only a ‘lower pleasure’ then what would be the point in building on this happiness if it isn’t long term? The idea of the pain and suffering caused to someone is so great and there seems to be no way of putting a stop to it, the whole point of utilitarianism is undermined. Also, there is the example of the swine ethic; one woman’s pain brings ten men happiness, which contradicts Bentham’s idea completely as in this example, one person’s pain is another person’s pleasure, so where is the middle