Bentham proposes a hedonistic view of morality. His only concerns are the pleasure or pain present in a particular moral choice.  Pleasure indicates a positive morality, and pain a negative one.  Morality, then, is reduced to its utility to provide pleasure or pain, and any moral value, whether positive or negative that a particular choice may have, is bound up in its pleasure/pain product.  The more pleasure a choice is apt to produce, the more right the choice is, and vice-versa.

Bentham begins with the notion that nature has placed us under “two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain.”  He reasons that pleasure and pain alone should determine moral value.  The highest moral goods are found in the achievement of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.   He concludes his opening remarks with the ad hominem argument that systems to the contrary lack sense, reason, and light.

For Bentham, the proper way to measure the moral value of a choice is further refined by seven categories of assessment: intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent.  Intensity and duration are self-explanatory.  Certainty or uncertainty regards the probability that the expected resulting pleasure or pain will actually occur.  Propinquity or remoteness relates to how near the pleasure or pain will be felt.  Fecundity is concerned with the likelihood of whether additional and similar pleasures or pains will follow.  Purity is self-explanatory, and extent regards the number of people to be affected.

Bentham argues for the dominion and authority of man over the animals, and then offers it as an application of his moral system.  Since man can benefit from the exploitation of animals, and animals are incapable of abstract thought, the morality of animal exploitation is inherent in the benefits which accrue to man.

Bentham’s moral system is shallow, ignoring concepts such as sacrificial love, obedience for non-temporal gain, and the principles of accepted moral conduct.  His system demands self-service and can only end in the further corruption of the human soul.  He is correct that nature has given us pleasure and pain and that they can be useful in some ways.  Pain, for example is a diagnostic tool in medicine.  But, pain is not always to be avoided.  The exquisite pain of loss in the death of a loved one is the only lasting and profound evidence of the love that one had for another.  The pain of hunger drives us to eat when we would otherwise starve.  Self-denial can produce good character, etc.

There is much momentary pleasure that can be had, but at the expense of the future.  One can think of alcohol, robbery, adultery and many others, all of which appear so useful in the moment but which are ultimately self-destructive.  Self-indulgent vanity which lives for the accolades of men is a well to which one must return again and again, yet sooner or later it shows itself to be devoid of any lasting value or satisfaction.

God, rather than nature, has given us pleasure and pain, but He has created us for a higher good than temporal pleasure and pain.  He has created us for His own pleasure.  One could argue that we have been given the carrot and stick of heaven and hell.  God has offered us the pleasure of eternal life with Him and He has threatened us with the pain of eternal damnation apart from Him.  In this sense, there is some merit to Bentham’s notion of a moral good being found in the pursuit of pleasure and a moral evil being found in the avoidance of pain, but not as he states it.  This modification ignores the temporal and embraces the eternal.  Another possible modification would be to apply Bentham’s pleasure/pain theory to God.  In this case, a moral good is that which gives God pleasure. A moral evil is that which gives Him pain.  This, I think, is the best view.