• The Ascetic Principle opposes pleasure, endorsing deprivation and self-denial.
• Two main groups, Philosophers and Devotees, adhere to Asceticism.
• Bentham advocates for the Principle of Utility in law to prevent societal misery.

The Ascetic Principle stands as a stark contrast to the Principle of Utility, functioning as its rival and antagonist. While the Principle of Utility advocates for actions that maximize pleasure and minimize pain, the Ascetic Principle takes an opposing stance.

Its followers abhor pleasure, regarding any form of sensory gratification as not only undesirable but also morally wrong.

This principle promotes the idea that actions reducing enjoyment or happiness are virtuous, while those increasing it are condemnable. At its core, it champions self-denial and deprivation as the foundation of morality.

Features of the Ascetic Principle

• The Ascetic Principle views human desires, especially those bringing pleasure, as inherently corrupt or sinful.
• It advocates not just moderation but the outright rejection of pleasure.
• Pleasure is seen as a harmful distraction from moral purity or higher spiritual or philosophical goals.
• Throughout history, asceticism has been practiced by groups and individuals valuing self-denial.
• Some see asceticism as a path to spiritual enlightenment.
• Others adopt it as a philosophical opposition to the transient and corrupt nature of worldly pleasures.

Adherents of the Ascetic Principle

Jeremy Bentham, a key figure in utilitarian philosophy, identifies two primary groups that adhere to the Ascetic Principle: philosophers and religionists. Each group interprets and applies asceticism in its own way, but both share the fundamental rejection of pleasure as morally suspect.

Philosophers

Philosophers who embrace the Ascetic Principle often criticize and reject all pleasures that are readily accessible to ordinary people. These philosophers tend to view pleasure as trivial, transient, or even harmful to the cultivation of a virtuous or enlightened life.

However, it is important to note that they do not typically advocate for self-inflicted pain as a duty. Instead, their focus lies in condemning pleasure itself, creating a universal prohibition against its pursuit.

For such philosophers, pleasure may be seen as a barrier to higher intellectual or moral achievements. By avoiding sensory gratification, they aim to discipline the mind and focus on what they perceive as more meaningful or eternal pursuits.

However, this perspective often leads to a life of detachment from ordinary human experiences, which some critics argue makes it impractical or even inhuman.

Devotees or Religionists

The second group adhering to the Ascetic Principle consists of religious devotees. These individuals are often motivated by doctrines that elevate self-denial and the rejection of sensory pleasures as a pathway to spiritual purity or divine favor.

Many religious traditions have incorporated ascetic practices such as fasting, celibacy, and physical austerities to achieve moral or spiritual goals.

For religionists, asceticism is often tied to the idea of sacrifice. By denying themselves worldly pleasures, they believe they are aligning more closely with divine will or preparing their souls for an afterlife.

In some traditions, suffering or deprivation is even seen as a way to attain enlightenment or transcendence, reinforcing the idea that pleasure is inherently corrupting.

Critique of the Ascetic Principle

Jeremy Bentham argues that the Ascetic Principle is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable. According to him, it is impossible for any living being to consistently follow this principle without dire consequences.

If even a small fraction of the population were to rigorously adopt asceticism, the resulting societal conditions would swiftly turn life on earth into a hellish existence.

Bentham’s critique is grounded in the observation that human beings are naturally inclined to seek pleasure and avoid pain. This is not merely a cultural or societal phenomenon but a fundamental aspect of human nature.

To live in deliberate opposition to these instincts, as the Ascetic Principle demands, would lead to widespread dissatisfaction and suffering.

Furthermore, Bentham points out that no society could thrive under such conditions, as the pursuit of happiness is integral to human progress and well-being.

The Principle of Utility: A Practical Alternative

In contrast to the Ascetic Principle, the Principle of Utility offers a practical and sustainable framework for both individual and societal well-being. Bentham defines this principle as the approval or disapproval of actions based on their tendency to augment or diminish happiness.

Unlike asceticism, which demands the rejection of pleasure, the Principle of Utility embraces it as a natural and desirable aspect of life.

Bentham argues that the consistent application of the Principle of Utility could create a paradise on earth. By maximizing happiness and minimizing pain, individuals and societies can achieve a state of harmony and prosperity.

This principle aligns with human nature, making it not only desirable but also feasible as a guiding framework for moral and legislative decisions.

The Impact of Asceticism on Legislation

Bentham’s critique of the Ascetic Principle extends to its potential influence on lawmakers and legal systems. He warns that if lawmakers were to embrace asceticism, they would enact laws that unnecessarily restrict personal freedoms and reduce overall happiness.

For instance, policies based on ascetic ideals might ban harmless pleasures or impose strict moral codes that prioritize deprivation over well-being.

Such laws, Bentham argues, would not only fail to serve the interests of the people but would actively harm them. By suppressing natural human desires and imposing unnecessary constraints, ascetic legislation would create a society characterized by dissatisfaction, resentment, and stagnation.

In contrast, laws grounded in the Principle of Utility would aim to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, ensuring that individual freedoms and collective well-being are preserved.

Asceticism in Religious Contexts

Religious asceticism has been a prominent feature of many faith traditions throughout history. Practices such as fasting, celibacy, and self-imposed poverty are often seen as expressions of piety or devotion.

However, Bentham critiques these practices as unnecessary and counterproductive, arguing that they impose undue burdens on individuals and communities.

In particular, Bentham takes issue with religious teachings that condemn sensory pleasures, such as those related to sexuality, as sinful or immoral. He contends that such prohibitions are often rooted in superstition rather than rational considerations of well-being.

For Bentham, consensual activities that bring pleasure should not be subject to moral or legal condemnation, as they contribute to individual happiness without causing harm.

The Limitations of the Ascetic Principle

Despite its historical and cultural significance, the Ascetic Principle faces significant challenges when applied as a universal moral framework. Its rejection of pleasure and embrace of deprivation run counter to the fundamental human pursuit of happiness.

Moreover, asceticism often leads to a narrow and restrictive view of morality, prioritizing self-denial over compassion, creativity, and social connection.

Bentham also points out the inherent inconsistency of asceticism. Even its most devoted adherents cannot entirely escape the pursuit of pleasure, as it is an intrinsic part of human nature. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the Ascetic Principle as a viable moral or philosophical doctrine.

Verdict

The Ascetic Principle, with its emphasis on self-denial and rejection of pleasure, represents a radical departure from the natural human inclination toward happiness. While certain philosophers and religious devotees have embraced it, its impracticality and potential for harm make it an unsuitable foundation for moral or legislative systems.

In contrast, the Principle of Utility offers a rational and humane alternative, aligning with human nature and promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Bentham’s critique of asceticism highlights its limitations and underscores the importance of embracing a moral framework that values well-being and pleasure.

By rejecting the Ascetic Principle and adhering to the Principle of Utility, individuals and societies can create a world that prioritizes happiness, freedom, and progress over unnecessary deprivation and suffering.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

What is the Ascetic Principle?

The Ascetic Principle is a moral philosophy that opposes pleasure, viewing it as morally wrong. Followers believe in deprivation and self-denial as virtuous acts.

Who follows the Ascetic Principle?

Two main groups adhere to the Ascetic Principle: Philosophers and Devotees (or Religionists). Philosophers critique pleasure but don’t inflict pain on themselves, while Devotees may incorporate religious beliefs into their ascetic lifestyle.

Can the Ascetic Principle be consistently followed?

No, the Ascetic Principle cannot be consistently followed by any living being. Even if adopted by a small fraction of the population, it could lead to a miserable existence for humanity.

What is the Principle of Utility?

The Principle of Utility, advocated by Jeremy Bentham, prioritizes actions that maximize overall happiness and minimize pain or suffering for the greatest number of people.

Why does Bentham argue against the Ascetic Principle?

Bentham argues against the Ascetic Principle because he believes adhering to it in lawmaking would lead to societal suffering. Instead, he advocates for the Principle of Utility to create a happier and more just society.