邊沁的苦樂學說是以其存有論和認識論為根據的。邊沁在闡述其存有論與認識論時，主要對柏克萊的存有論與認識論進行了批判，而事實上在主觀感知論上，邊沁與柏克萊是一致的。故此，斯科菲爾德將邊沁的存有論認定是客觀主義的做法是錯誤的。斯科菲爾德之所以犯了這樣一個錯誤，是因為他將邊沁的存有論解讀為是洛克式的，而在存有論上，洛克犯了休姆所謂的感知與外在物體「雙重存在」的謬誤。邊沁闡述其苦樂主宰論時，主要認可繼承了休姆的情感主宰論與苦樂決定論。由於休姆認可接受了柏克萊的主觀感知論，並以此為基礎建構其苦樂學說，所以無論是直接的方式還是間接的方式，在存有論與認識論上，邊沁與柏克萊是具有繼承關係的，是屬於同一理論脈絡的。在主觀感知論上，柏克萊、休姆與邊沁，他們三者是一脈相承的；而以此為基礎的邊沁的苦樂決定論卻是與休姆具有直接的繼承關係的。

Based on his ontology and epistemology, Jeremy Bentham formulates his theory of pain and pleasure. Jeremy Bentham mainly discusses George Berkeley when he elaborates his ontology and epistemology. Although probably due to some misunderstanding, Jeremy Bentham criticizes George Berkeley’s ontology and epistemology a lot, actually in terms of subjectivism, Jeremy Bentham’s ontology and epistemology are just identical with George Berkeley’s. Therefore, it is completely wrong for Philip Schofield to hold that Jeremy Bentham’s ontology is objectivist. Philip Schofield’s mistake lies in his interpretation of Jeremy Bentham’s ontology as John Locke’s to which Hume attributes the error of the ‘double existence’ of perception and external bodies. When elaborating the theory of the sovereign of pain and pleasure, Jeremy Bentham mainly follows David Hume’s theory. Due to the fact that David Hume follows George Berkeley’s subjectivist ontology and epistemology, a conclusion can be drawn that ， directly or indirectly, in ontology and epistemology, Jeremy Bentham actually follows George Berkeley’s subjectivist way, and thus, in ontology and epistemology, Jeremy Bentham, David Hume and George Berkeley belongs to the same school .