Jeremy Bentham:

Biography:
 Born in a Rich Lawyer’s Family,1784-1832
 Real Founder of Modern English Utilitarianism
 His theory of Utilitarianism was deeply influenced by Priestly’s book
“Essay on Government” – “The happiness of the majority of its members is
the standard by which a state should be judged.”
 Hume and Priestly in England and Helvetius in France have propounded
the theory of utilitarianism. They had a great influence on Bentham.
 His Works: Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
(1789), Fragments of government, Theory of Punishment and Rewards
(1811)
Bases of His Philosophy:
 Belief in the notion of Equality. He was a firm believer in the notion of
equality especially for women, an enemy of imperialism and an
uncompromising democrat.
 Greatest Happiness Principle: He was a staunch supporter that the
principle “greatest happiness of the greatest number” and stated that
every institution existed to promote the happiness of people. If people are
happy, then general welfare is achieved. Surely, a democratic feeling. Any
action is good, or virtuous if it brings pleasure and any action is bad if it
brings pain.
 Reason as the principle guide in the society. Led him to denounce religion
as a man made concept.
 Rejected the idea of Natural Rights. Rights that lack any governmental
enforcement are nothing but “nonsense on stilts.”
Bentham’s Political Philosophy:
The term “utility” stands for usefulness and in it everything such as institutions,
ideas, acts are examined by their usefulness to the people who are affected by
them. “Usefulness” clearly signifies the happiness of the people, which is judged
according to the pleasure it brings to an individual.
“For each individual what gives him pleasure is good, what causes him pain is evil.”
Bentham.
“By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of
every action whatever according to the tendency it appears to augment or
diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question is to promote or to
oppose happiness.”
Bentham
“Bentham’s principle is shortly stated. It is that of the various possibilities open to
us in any given case, we ought to choose which will produce the greatest happiness
to the greatest number.”
W.T. Jones. Master of Political Thought.

Objective of legislator:
 Is to support the maximum of happiness of people. “In matters of
legislation, general utility should be his guiding principle.

A legislator should take into account the following 7 things:

  Intensity
 Duration
 Certainity
 Proximity
 Productiveness
 Purity
 Extent.
According to Bentham, Pleasure are of 15 kinds:
 Sense
 Wealth
 Skill
 Unity
 Repute
 Power
 Piety
 Benevolence
 Malevolence
 Intellect
 Mmeory
 Imagination
 Hope
 Assciation
 Relief
According to Bentham, Pain is of 11 kinds:
 Privation
 Sense
 Awkwardness
 Enmity
 Ill repute
 Piety
 Benevolence
 Malevolence
 Memory
 Imagination
 Anticipation

Application:

Many of Bentham’s views were considered radical in Georgian and Victorian

Britain. His manuscripts on homosexuality were so liberal that his editor
hid them from the public after his death.4 Underlying his position on the
decriminalization of homosexuality were his beliefs that the right end of
government is the maximization of happiness, and that the severity of
punishment should be proportional to the harm inflicted by the crime. He
was also an early advocate of animal welfare , famously stating that their
capacity to feel suffering gives us reason to care for their wellbeing: “The
question is not can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer? ”.5 As
well as animal welfare and the decriminalization of homosexuality,
Bentham supported women’s rights (including the right to divorce), the
abolition of slavery, the abolition of capital punishment, the abolition of
corporal punishment, prison reform and economic liberalization.6
Bentham also applied the principle of utility to the reform of political
institutions. Believing that with greater education, people can more
accurately discern their long-term interests, and seeing progress in
education within his own society, he supported democratic reforms such as
the extension of the suffrage. He also advocated for greater freedom of
speech, transparency and publicity of officials as accountability
mechanisms. A committed atheist, he argued in favor of the separation of
church and state.

Bentham begins by laying out the principle of utility:

“...that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever,

according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the
happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in
other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness.”

When Bentham speaks of the common good, he is referring to the sum total of all
individuals' interests. Laws, for Bentham, are about promoting happiness. But laws
also involve punishment, which is in itself an unhappiness. Utilitarians therefore, have
a prima facie difficult time justifying punishment. Thus, the two questions Bentham
wishes to apply utilitarian moral theory to answer are: When are we justified in
punishing? What are the limits of just punishment?

When are we justified in punishing?

Pure cost benefit

For example, locking up a violent criminal in order to protect society from further
violence (deterrence through incapacitation). The costs to him are great, but given his
propensity towards violence, the benefits of removing him from the community far
exceed the costs to him.

Deterrence

When humans decide how to act, we tend to look towards the consequences of our
actions. Punishment, when factored in as a consequence, can therefore prevent (deter)
crime. What is especially interesting about this idea is that it may not require that a
punishment be actually used, as in virtue of knowing the punishment, the crime will
rarely occur. Thus, utilitarians take special favor in deterrence, as not only does it
lower the overall crime rate, but it often does so by imposing minimal punishment (as
punishment is an evil in itself).

3. Rehabilitation

Punishments to shape the future behavior of the criminal are considered rehabilitation.
Utilitarians favor rehabilitation because it salvages one more person from becoming a
criminal and transforms them into a productive law-abiding citizen. Deterrence, on
the individual level, may have a similar effect to rehabilitation (criminals stop
committing crimes), but the motive is different. Rehabilitation means an individual no
longer wants to commit the crime(s) in question. In contrast, individual deterrence
means a criminal is simply afraid to commit the crime(s) again.

What are limits of punishing?

Bentham cashes out the principle of utility to provide the following instances of when
punishment cannot be justified:

Where punishment is groundless (punishing innocents, for instance).

If the mischief was necessary to achieve a greater good, this too would make
punishment groundless. Suppose I have someone in need of emergency medical
assistance in the car and as such I run red lights after looking both ways and finding
no traffic. Punishing me in this case serves no gain in utility. This area would also
include cases where compensation can be made for the harm done without
punishment. For example, if someone breaks your window but pays for repairs and
compensates you for the inconvenience, then there is no need for the state to punish.
Though Bentham doesn't mention it, Mill, of course, would include in this category
not only innocent people but also cases where everyone involved consented.

2. Where punishment is inefficacious (it is unable to prevent bad behavior). This

would include cases:

3. Where the law is ex-post facto (where the act was not illegal when performed).

4. Where the law is passed but is not conveyed to those it is intended to regulate
(this is not to say ignorance is an excuse, but it is to say that if a law is never
posted or publicized, then there is no justification for enforcement).

5. Where the law, though passed and conveyed, could not have an impact on the
person (i.e. infant, children, and the insane).

6. Bentham also lists intoxication into this class of inefficacious punishments

(although other utilitarians would reject this).

7. Finally this would include unintentional acts, acts done due to fear (self-
defense) and acts that are involuntary (acting from compulsion, “your money
or your life,” sort of situations).

8. Where punishment is unprofitable (Where the costs of punishment outweigh

the benefits of punishment).

Costs of punishment include the evil of coercion, restraint, apprehension (the

pain of the person), and sympathy (the pain others experience out of concern
for the one punished). These costs must be weighed against the benefits of
punishment which include the degree of the offense, the number of offenses,
the likelihood of repeat offense (or of deterring future offenses) and the
 displeasure of the people who are aware of the crime. Interestingly, Bentham
includes foreign powers and communities in determining the benefits of
punishment. If by punishing a person we would greatly offend another nation,
this would be justifiable reason for not punishing.

2. Where punishment is needless (where the mischief will itself cease or can be
prevented without punishment).

3. In a case where education will prevent a crime, then we ought to forgo

punishment. Or if pure pressure alone will prevent the action in future (i.e. you
did learn your lesson by the reaction of others)

Criticism: