Mao Zedong, the Cultural Revolution, and Maoism: A Comprehensive

Exploration

Introduction

Mao Zedong, the enigmatic founder of the People's Republic of China, remains one of the most
significant and controversial figures of the 20th century. His influence extends far beyond the borders of
China, leaving an indelible mark on global political thought and social movements. Understanding Mao
requires delving into two major interconnected phenomena: the Cultural Revolution and Maoism ,
a unique political ideology he formulated. This essay aims to comprehensively explore these
interconnected entities, examining their individual characteristics and intricate relationship.

Part I: Mao Zedong

1.1 A Life of Revolution:

Born in 1893, Mao's early life was shaped by poverty and peasant uprisings. Witnessing the injustices
faced by the rural masses ignited a revolutionary spark within him. He immersed himself in Marxist and
Leninist ideologies, finding in them a framework for understanding and ultimately changing the world.
Mao's rise through the ranks of the Chinese Communist Party was remarkable, driven by his charisma,
strategic brilliance, and unwavering commitment to the cause. By 1949, he had led the communists to
victory in the Chinese Civil War, establishing the People's Republic of China.

1.2 A Complex Legacy:

Mao's legacy is a complex tapestry woven with both triumphs and tragedies. He is credited with uniting
China under a single banner, modernizing the economy, and improving the lives of millions. However, his
name is also synonymous with the devastating famines and widespread violence that occurred during the
Cultural Revolution, leaving a deep scar on the nation's psyche.
 Part II: The Cultural Revolution (1966-1976)

2.1 A Decade of Upheaval:

The Cultural Revolution, initiated by Mao in 1966, was a tumultuous period of social and political
upheaval. Driven by his desire to purge the country of "bourgeois elements" and maintain the
revolutionary spirit, Mao unleashed the Red Guards, a fanatical youth movement that engaged in
widespread persecution and violence. Universities were closed, cultural artifacts destroyed, and countless
individuals labelled as counter-revolutionaries were subjected to public humiliation and imprisonment.
2.2 Lasting Consequences:
The Cultural Revolution's impact on China was profound and multifaceted. While Mao's goal of
rekindling revolutionary zeal was achieved, the cost was immense. Millions perished due to violence and
famine, the economy stagnated, and intellectual and artistic expression were stifled. The Cultural
Revolution's legacy continues to be debated, with some seeing it as a necessary step in consolidating
Mao's power and others condemning its barbarity and lasting damage to Chinese society.

Part III: Maoism: A Political Ideology in Action

3.1 A Unique Adaptation:

Maoism emerged as a distinct variant of Marxism-Leninism, adapted by Mao to address the specific
circumstances of China. Unlike traditional Marxist focuses on the urban proletariat, Maoism emphasized
the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, who constituted the majority of China's population.
Continuous class struggle, regardless of the stage of the revolution, was another key tenet. Additionally,
Mao cultivated a cult of personality, positioning himself as an infallible figure and demanding
unwavering loyalty from the masses.

3.2 Guiding Principles:

Maoism's core principles shaped the policies and actions of the Chinese government throughout Mao's
leadership. The emphasis on peasant revolution led to land reforms and rural development programs. The
concept of continuous class struggle fueled constant political purges and ideological campaigns, such as
the Hundred Flowers Movement and the Anti-Rightist Campaign. Moreover, Mao's cult of personality
cemented his authority and stifled dissent, ultimately contributing to the excesses of the Cultural
Revolution.
Part IV: The Intertwined Threads

4.1 A Complex Web:

The relationship between Mao Zedong, the Cultural Revolution, and Maoism is one of intricate causation
and consequence. Mao's belief in the necessity of continuous class struggle and his desire to maintain
revolutionary purity served as the primary catalysts for the Cultural Revolution. This violent upheaval, in
turn, became a potent arena for enacting Maoist principles and solidifying Mao's cult of personality.

4.2 A Legacy Still Unfolding:

The Cultural Revolution remains a deeply contested and sensitive topic in China. While some view it as a
necessary period of social and ideological cleansing, others condemn its violence and destruction.
Analyzing the motivations behind the Cultural Revolution and its enduring impact necessitates
understanding the broader context of Maoist ideology and Mao's own complex personality and ambitions.

Conclusion

The Cultural Revolution and Maoism stand as testaments to the power and complexity of revolutionary
ideology. While their implementation resulted in significant suffering and social upheaval, understanding
their origins and motivations remains crucial for comprehending China's historical trajectory and its
ongoing political and social landscape. As China continues to grapple with its past and navigate the
challenges

The Cultural Revolution Begins

In the 1960s, Chinese Communist Party leader Mao Zedong came to feel that the current party leadership
in China, as in the Soviet Union, was moving too far in a revisionist direction, with an emphasis on
expertise rather than on ideological purity. Mao’s own position in government had weakened after the
failure of his “Great Leap Forward” (1958-60) and the economic crisis that followed. Chairman Mao
Zedong gathered a group of radicals, including his wife Jiang Qing and defense minister Lin Biao, to help
him attack current party leadership and reassert his authority.
Mao launched the so-called Cultural Revolution (known in full as the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution) in August 1966, at a meeting of the Plenum of the Central Committee. He shut down the
nation’s schools, calling for a massive youth mobilization to take current party leaders to task for their
embrace of bourgeois values and lack of revolutionary spirit. In the months that followed, the movement
escalated quickly as the students formed paramilitary groups called the Red Guards and attacked and
harassed members of China’s elderly and intellectual population. A personality cult quickly sprang up
around Mao, similar to that which existed for Josef Stalin, with different factions of the movement
claiming the true interpretation of Maoist thought. The population was urged to rid itself of the “Four
Olds”: Old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas.

Cultural Revolution Comes to an End

Zhou acted to stabilize China by reviving educational system and restoring numerous former officials to
power. In 1972, however, Mao suffered a stroke; in the same year, Zhou learned he had cancer. The two
leaders threw their support to Deng Xiaoping (who had been purged during the first phase of the Cultural
Revolution), a development opposed by the more radical Jiang and her allies, who became known as the
Gang of Four. In the next several years, Chinese politics teetered between the two sides. The radicals
finally convinced Mao to purge Deng in April 1976, a few months after Zhou’s death, but after Mao died
that September, a civil, police and military coalition pushed the Gang of Four out. Deng regained power
in 1977 and would maintain control over Chinese government for the next 20 years.

Long-Term Effects of the Cultural Revolution

Some 1.5 million people were killed during the Cultural Revolution, and millions of others suffered
imprisonment, seizure of property, torture or general humiliation. The Cultural Revolution’s short-term
effects may have been felt mainly in China’s cities, but its long-term effects would impact the entire
country for decades to come. Mao’s large-scale attack on the party and system he had created would
eventually produce a result opposite to what he intended, leading many Chinese to lose faith in their
government altogether.
Q.Mahatma Gandhi: Swaraj and Village Democracy, Civil Disobedience,
Non-Violence, and Politics

Introduction

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, or Mahatma Gandhi, is hailed as the leader of the Indian independence
movement against British colonial rule. His philosophy, deeply rooted in non-violence, self-rule (Swaraj),
and social justice, continues to be a source of inspiration globally. This essay delves into four core aspects
of Gandhi's philosophy, namely Swaraj, village democracy, civil disobedience, and the nuanced
relationship between non-violence and politics.

I. Swaraj (Self-Rule)
A. Definition and Essence
Swaraj, in the Gandhian perspective, transcended mere political freedom. It was a holistic concept
envisioning individual and community self-rule. At the personal level, it meant self-discipline and
introspection, while at the societal level, it sought decentralized governance. The essence of Swaraj lay in
fostering a society where individuals could achieve self-realization while contributing to the collective
good.
B. Constructive Program
Gandhi's Constructive Program was a blueprint for achieving Swaraj through positive, constructive
actions. The program encompassed several dimensions, including the promotion of khadi (hand-spun
cloth) to empower local economies, the development of village industries for economic self-sufficiency,
initiatives in education to promote self-reliance, and sanitation projects for improved public health. This
approach aimed not only at political independence but also at building the socio-economic foundations of
a self-reliant and harmonious society.

C. Three Pillars of Swaraj

# 1. Political Swaraj
Political Swaraj, according to Gandhi, was the attainment of political independence through non-violent
means. It involved resisting foreign rule while nurturing the ability of communities to govern themselves.
The Salt March and the Quit India Movement were manifestations of this pursuit.
# 2. Economic Swaraj
Economic Swaraj aimed at economic empowerment and self-sufficiency at the grassroots level. Gandhi
advocated for the revitalization of village industries, agriculture, and the promotion of cottage industries
to ensure economic independence and equitable distribution of resources.
# 3. Cultural Swaraj
Cultural Swaraj emphasized the preservation and promotion of indigenous culture and values. Gandhi
believed that a nation's strength lies in its cultural roots, and efforts should be made to resist cultural
imperialism. This involved reviving traditional arts, crafts, and practices while resisting the blind adoption
of Western cultural norms.

II. Village Democracy

A. Sarvodaya and Gram Swaraj
Sarvodaya, meaning the welfare of all, and Gram Swaraj, village self-rule, formed the basis of Gandhi's
vision for decentralized governance. Sarvodaya envisioned the well-being of the entire society, while
Gram Swaraj emphasized local self-rule, with villages acting as self-sufficient units contributing to the
overall welfare of the nation.
B. Panchayati Raj System
Gandhi's advocacy for the Panchayati Raj system was rooted in the belief that local self-governance
through elected village councils (Panchayats) could empower individuals and communities. This system
aimed at decentralizing political power, fostering participatory decision-making, and nurturing a sense of
responsibility and ownership among citizens.
C. Trusteeship
Gandhi's concept of trusteeship proposed a middle path between capitalism and socialism. Wealthy
individuals were encouraged to consider their wealth as a trust for the benefit of society, promoting a
sense of responsibility and ethical wealth distribution. This idea sought to address economic inequality
and foster a spirit of cooperation and shared well-being.

III. Civil Disobedience

A. Definition and Rationale
Civil disobedience, a cornerstone of Gandhi's philosophy, involved the non-violent refusal to obey certain
laws or commands deemed unjust. It was rooted in the belief that individuals had a moral duty to resist
oppressive laws and systems peacefully.
B. Salt March
The Salt March of 1930 was a defining moment in the Indian independence movement. Gandhi and his
followers walked over 240 miles to the Arabian Sea to produce salt, challenging the British monopoly and
protesting against exorbitant salt taxes. This symbolic act garnered widespread attention, rallying people
across India and internationally, showcasing the power of non-violent resistance.
C. Satyagraha
Satyagraha, the soul of civil disobedience, underscored the force of truth and non-violence in confronting
injustice. It was not merely a strategy but a way of life, demanding moral courage, self-discipline, and a
commitment to truth. Satyagraha sought to transform the oppressor's heart rather than defeat them
physically, exemplifying the strength of passive resistance.
 IV. Non-Violence and Politics
A. Ahimsa
Ahimsa, the principle of non-violence, was not a passive stance but an active force for social and political
change. It extended beyond abstaining from physical violence to include non-violence in thought, speech,
and action. Ahimsa aimed at fostering compassion, understanding, and empathy.
B. Political Applications
Gandhi's application of non-violence in politics was strategic and impactful. The Quit India Movement,
where he called for the British to leave India immediately, demonstrated the political effectiveness of non-
violence. Gandhi believed that non-violent resistance could appeal to the moral conscience of oppressors,
offering a more sustainable and just alternative to armed conflict.
C. Legacy and Global Impact
Gandhi's principles of non-violence left an indelible mark on the global stage. Leaders like Martin Luther
King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Cesar Chavez drew inspiration from Gandhi's approach in their respective
civil rights movements. His legacy continues to resonate in various social justice movements worldwide,
emphasizing the enduring power of non-violence in effecting positive change.

Conclusion
Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy, encapsulated in Swaraj, village democracy, civil disobedience, and non-
violence, presents a profound vision for a just and harmonious society. His teachings remain relevant,
offering timeless lessons on the potential of peaceful resistance, community empowerment, and the
transformative power of truth. As we reflect on Gandhi's legacy, we find a guiding light for addressing
contemporary challenges through principles that promote human dignity, equality, and collective well-
being.

Q.John Stuart mill

Introduction
John Stuart Mill was one of the most important intellectual figures of the nineteenth century. He
contributed to economics, epistemology, logic, and psychology, among other fields. However, his most
lasting influence has been through his utilitarian ethics and liberal political philosophy.
Utilitarianism
To understand Mill’s philosophical contribution, it is crucial to say something about his personal
intellectual history. His most formative intellectual influences were the earlier utilitarians: his father,
James Mill (1773-1836), and his godfather, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). These Philosophical Radicals,
as they were often called, believed that all human motivation could be understood in terms of the pursuit
of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. As Bentham writes in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals
and Legislation, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign
masters, pain and pleasure.” The foundational normative principle of utilitarianism is that actions should
be judged according to how much happiness they produce. The course of action that produces the most
happiness for the greatest number of persons, is the one that ought to be followed.
In Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill defines the doctrine as follows: “The creed which accepts as the
foundations of morals ‘utility’ or the ‘greatest happiness principle’ holds that actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain;
by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.” Mill understood his essay as continuing the tradition
founded by his father and Bentham. However, Mill was also troubled by some criticisms of utilitarianism,
and in his attempts to answer these objections, Mill developed his own distinctive doctrine.
One of the objections to utilitarianism that most troubled Mill was the charge that it is based on a low
view of humankind. It makes pleasure the measure of value, and it seems to put all human pleasures—
from philosophical contemplation to drunkenness—on the same level. According to earlier utilitarians,
such as Bentham, it is the quantity, not the type of pleasure, that matters. In The Rationale of Reward,
Bentham seems to relish the equivalence: “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with
the arts and sciences of music and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnished more pleasure, it is more
valuable than either.” Mill disagreed, and set out to justify higher human pursuits on utilitarian terms.
In order to defend utilitarianism against the charge of philistinism, Mill develops a doctrine of higher
pleasures. “Human beings,” he argues, “have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when
once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness that does not include their
gratification.” The exercise of reason, the autonomous setting and pursuing of one’s own plan of life, and
the appreciation of poetry are more important to human happiness than the satisfaction of sensual desire.
In fact, Mill argues that even an unfulfilled capacity for higher pleasure contributes more to happiness
than sensual satisfaction. As he puts it, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;
better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” No human, argues Mill, would exchange his higher
capacities for a life of swinish satisfaction, just as Socrates preferred his own death to a life bereft of
philosophy. Moreover, this is not a matter of subjective preference. According to Mill, we should accept
human judgment of Socrates on these questions because we have experienced both sorts of pleasures and
are therefore qualified judges of the matter. By contrast “if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion, it
is only because they only know their side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both
sides.”
Another distinctive aspect of Mill’s utilitarianism is its progressivism. In On Liberty, he writes: “I regard
utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded
on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.” Mill believes that humans beings are shaped
by their experiences and education, and, therefore, that they can augment their higher capacities. Thus,
Mill’s utility principle aims not only at the satisfaction of existing desires, but also at human
improvement. This progressive dimension of his thought recurs throughout his political writings.
Liberalism
On Liberty is one of the most important, and widely-read, articulations of liberal philosophy in the history
of political thought. The single object of the essay, writes Mill, is to assert the principle that “The only
purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against
his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant….
Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” Mill thus disqualifies other
reasons that are often used to justify interference with individual liberty. The harm principle excludes
paternalism, or constraining an individual’s freedom for the sake of what one believes to be that
individual’s own benefit. Instead, Mill argues that each individual should be able to decide what
constitutes his or her own good and how he or she will pursue it. Similarly, actions cannot properly be
constrained on the grounds that they will cause offence, rather than harm, to other people. My own
interests and possible offence to others may provide me with reasons to persuade someone else to select
one course of action over another, but they cannot justify coercion.
The harm principle, then, relies on a clear distinction between: a) the sphere of action that concerns only
the actor himself, in which the actor should enjoy unimpeded freedom; and b) the sphere of action that
affects others, in which the harm principle might constrain my actions. Whether it is possible to maintain
such a precise distinction, and where exactly the demarcation lies, has often been disputed. Mill himself,
however, provides a relatively expansive interpretation of the sphere of liberty. He writes that individuals
ought to enjoy complete liberty of conscience, thought, and feeling on all subjects, and a nearly complete
liberty of expression. Expression should be restricted only when the act of expression could cause harm,
such as incitement to violence. All should have the liberty to form and pursue their own plan of life, to do
as they like, subject to whatever consequences might follow. Finally, Mill contends that the individual
should enjoy freedom of association for any purpose not involving harm to others.
Mill also holds a relatively expansive notion of the potential threats to individual liberty. Mill does not
believe that popular sovereignty alone is a sufficient safeguard for human freedom. Rather, he sides with
Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville, and believes the tyranny of the majority to be a serious
threat in an age of popular government.
Further, Mill does not regard the instruments of government as the sole, or even the most serious,
constraint on individual liberty. The harm principle also applies to the informal sanctions imposed by
society upon dissenting or eccentric individuals. When society oversteps its bounds, “it practises a social
tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by
such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of
life, and enslaving the soul itself.” Mill is worried that the weight of public opinion can stifle
individuality, and regards these informal social controls as a form of coercion. The yoke of opinion, in
Mill’s view, poses as much of a threat to human liberty as the yoke of the law.
Early in On Liberty, Mill underlines the utilitarian character of his liberalism, writing: “I forego any
advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent
from utility.” Other authors often treat individual rights as constraints on action that are justified
independently of their consequences. Kant’s view of rights is the kind of view from which Mill is
distancing himself. According to Mill, however, it is the consequences for the “permanent interests of
man as a progressive being” that justify liberal rights.
The utilitarian basis of Mill’s liberalism is evident in his two-part defense of freedom of expression. The
first part consists of an argument that contends that complete freedom of expression is the best means of
determining the truth. Human knowledge, he argues, is necessarily fallible, and therefore we cannot know
with absolute certainty which opinions are true and which are false. It is only through confrontation with
competing ideas that any position can be shown to be better or worse than its rivals. Moreover, through
debate it is possible to discover useful elements of truth contained within otherwise false positions.
Limiting freedom of expression hinders the single most important instrument for the discovery of truth.
The second part of Mill’s argument contends that free expression is beneficial even when the opinions
being expressed are false because open debate carries important developmental benefits. Engaging in free
and equal conversation, considering ideas upon their merits, and defending one’s beliefs against others are
invaluable means of developing one’s intellectual capacities. Further, Mill believes that the process of
defending one’s beliefs against rival positions gives the individual a livelier sense of their truth and
significance. Beliefs and values that are simply accepted without critical scrutiny are mindless dogmas
that dull rather than improve human reason. In Mill’s words, “He who lets the world, or his own portion
of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation.”
Free expression is vital because it provides the opportunity to exercise one’s capacities for reason and
self-determination and, in doing so, develop them to a higher degree.
Representative Government and Democracy
Mill presents his most sustained defense of representative democracy in Considerations on
Representative Government. Here, Mill proposes two criteria for good government. The first is the
tendency of the government to promote the common good, understood as promoting the virtue and
intelligence of the people. Second is the ability of the government to make use of the capacities of the
populace for the common good. He then considers what kind of government is best, comparing
benevolent despotism, in which the people are ruled by a wise and well-intentioned sovereign, with
representative government.
Although Mill grants that there are benefits to rule by a benevolent and exceptionally capable individual,
he argues that representative government excels benevolent despotism on both criteria. The best
government, for Mill, is one in which a body of representatives is elected by universal suffrage. The
purpose of the representative body is to articulate the needs and concerns of the electorate through free
and open discussion, and to decide on the objectives of government policy. However, the representatives
will not always craft the legislation themselves. Mill argues that the task of governing a large nation is
sufficiently complex as to require a high level of technical knowledge, and, therefore, expert civil servants
will conduct many governmental tasks, including drafting legislation, with the representatives providing
oversight. Mill also encourages a high degree of local government, and as much participation in
government as is practicable.
The most serious drawback of despotic government is that, even if is well-intentioned and wise, it
produces a passive populace. Intelligence, virtue, and energy are the fruits of activity, and it is only
through the exercise of one’s capacities that one can develop them. By doing everything for its citizens,
the despotic government deprives them of the opportunity to act for themselves, and thus of the
opportunity to develop their higher capacities. Representative government has the clear advantage in this
regard. The process of selecting representatives, the open debate in parliament, and local participation, all
have improving effects on the populace. The very operation of representative government constantly
increases the stock of intelligence and virtue upon which government may draw.
According to Mill, representative government is also the most effective way to organize the capacities of
the citizens for the common good. He envisions the best and wisest rising to the top of government as the
people choose their betters to represent them. Moreover, Mill believes that the leading intellects of
society, even out of office, will take a hand in governing society without attempting to dominate it. In
general, Mill is significantly more confident about the effects of representative government than many of
his contemporaries. For example, Alexis de Tocqueville, whom Mill greatly admired, expressed greater
concern about the tendency of democratic elections to produce mediocrity in government rather than
excellence.
The notion of man as a “progressive being” that underlies Mill’s defense of representative government
also implies that his defense is only a relative one. According to Mill, there is no form of government that
is appropriate in all times and places. Rather, governments must be tailored to the people they are to
govern. While representative democracy is best in the civilized world, there are many peoples who are
unfit for liberty. Therefore, argues Mill, “despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with
barbarians provided that the end be their improvement and the means justified by actually effecting that
end.” Enlightened despotism can teach the crucial lesson of obedience, thus readying people for the next
stage of civilizational development. Liberty only becomes valuable when the people are in a position to
benefit from it: “as a principle [liberty] has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when
mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.” Thus, Mill’s support of
liberty and representative government is tied to a theory of human progress.
The Status of Women
John Stuart Mill was concerned with the status of women in society, and he campaigned energetically to
further the cause of equality between the sexes. In The Subjection of Women, he declares: “The legal
subordination of one sex to the other—is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human
improvement; and … it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or
privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.”
As might be expected, Mill argues from utilitarian premises, showing how equal status and education for
women will be advantageous to all of society. Women themselves will benefit most directly from their
emancipation, winning “an unspeakable gain in private happiness…; the difference to them between a life
of subjection to the will of others, and a life of rational freedom.” Liberation will result both in an
immediate increase in happiness, and a gradual increase as the exercise of freedom expands women’s
higher capacities.
The subjection of women not only limits the improvement of women, but is “the chief hindrance to
human improvement” generally. To restrict women to domestic pursuits is to block them from turning
their energies to the broader benefit of society.
“The… benefit to be expected from giving to women the free use of their faculties, by leaving them the
free choice of their employments, and opening to them the same field of occupation and the same prizes
and encouragements as to other human beings, would be that of doubling the mass of mental faculties
available for the higher service of humanity.”
Men too, argues Mill, will directly benefit from sexual equality. When both sexes are free, marriage will
cease to be a form of bondage and will become a kind of friendship between equals. Mill thought that a
principal means of self-development is to engage in free and equal conversation with intelligent
companions. A well-educated spouse would provide just such a companion, creating a dynamic of mutual
improvement within marriage.

Q.Jeremy Bentham
jeremy Bentham was born just one hundred years before the publication of The Communist Manifesto,
that is, in the year 1748, and he died in the year 1832 when the Reform Bill was passed by the British
Parliament.
Bentham’s interests were many and varied. Economics, logic, psychology, penology, theology, ethics and
politics—nothing escaped his attention. But his main interest was law and government.
Political Ideas of Jeremy Bentham:
1. Principle of Utility:
Though Bentham, in the strictest sense, was not the father or originator of the doctrine of utilitarianism,
there is no denying the fact that he is the greatest and best interpreter of the principle of utility or
utilitarianism.
His clear dictum is – each and every government—while formulating any policy or taking any decision or
implementing any action regarding the management of state—must remember that whether or to what
extent that policy or action or principle is capable of maximising comfort or pleasure of the people.
This announcement of Bentham is clearly individualistic in tone. The comfort or pleasure of the people is
of primary importance for any government worthy of its name.
At the beginning of his an Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation Bentham writes:
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters— pain and pleasure… In
words a man may pretend to adjure their empire, but in reality he will remain subject to it all the while.
The principle of utility recognizes this subjection and assumes it for the foundation of that system, the
object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity by the hands of reason and law
He further says:
To them we refer all our decisions, every resolve that we make in life. The man who affects to have
withdrawn himself from their despotic sway does not know what he is talking about.
To seek pleasure and shun pain is his sole aim, even at the moment when he is denying himself the
greatest enjoyment or courting penalties of the most severe kind. This maxim, unchangeable and
irresistible as it is, should become the chief study of the Moralist and of the Legislator. To these two
motives the principle of utility subjects everything.
These two observations of Bentham clearly state what he wants to say about the doctrine of utilitarianism.
In every sphere of life and in every action man’s sole guide is the calculation of pain and pleasure.
So it is a must for the legislator or administrator to see that men are getting pleasure or will get pleasure
while taking any action. What Bentham emphasizes is that it would be unwise and undesirable to adopt
any policy that will not be able to cater to the interests of general public or will not be able to avoid pain
and augment the quantity of pleasure.
In a word, the avoidance of pain and attainment of pleasure shall be the guiding principle of any
governmental policy. By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of
every action whatsoever, according to the tendency of which it appears to have to augment or diminish
the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.
The action may be of any private person or it may be any measure of government. The acceptance or
rejection of every action or measure depends upon its ability to provide pleasure or pain.
Bentham then defines utility. By utility is meant that property in any object whereby it tends to produce
benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil or
unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered.
2. Sources of Pleasure and Pain and Measurement:

 There are generally four sources of pleasure and pain which are distinguishable from each other.
These are physical, moral, political and religious. These may combinedly be sanctions. The
physical or natural sanction comprises the pains and pleasures which we may experience or
expect in the ordinary course of nature, not purposely modified by any human interposition.
 The moral sanction comprises such pains and pleasures as we experience or expect at the hands of
our fellow beings prompted by feelings of hatred or goodwill or contempt or regard; in a word,
according to the spontaneous disposition of each individual.
 This sanction may also be styled popular, the sanction of public opinion or of honour, or the
sanction or pains and pleasures of sympathy. When the political authority as well as its laws and
decisions happen to be the source of pain and pleasure for the individuals we call it political.
 Sometimes religion or religious authorities-through different acts and decisions-create both
pleasure and Pain or any one-we term it religious. The scrutiny of the value of pleasure reveals
that it depends on generally four circumstances and, in the view of Bentham these are – intensity,
duration, certainty or uncertainty and proximity or remoteness.
 While the individuals measure or estimate pleasure or pain they bring these four circumstances
under consideration. But when the value of any pleasure or pain is considered for the purpose of
estimating the tendency of any act by which it is produced, there are two other circumstances to
be taken into account.
 These are its fecundity and its purity. The fecundity and purity are, in strictness, not deemed the
properties of pleasure and pain.
An important part of Bentham’s theory of pleasure and pain consists of calculation or what may be called
measurement. If pain and pleasure cannot be measured, it would not be an easy task for the individual to
take decision or arrive at conclusion.
Bentham’s suggestion runs as follows:
Begin with any one person whose interests seem to be most affected by any act of the authority.

 Then we are to calculate the value of each distinguishable pleasure and as well as the value of
each distinguishable pain. Sum up all the values of all the pleasures on the one side and those of
all the pains on the other. If the balance is on the side of pleasures then the act or decision will be
treated as good.
 The individual will give his consent to it if the balance is on the side of pains the tendency is bad
and the person concerned will argue against the implementation of the policy or act. Take an
account of all the persons whose interests appear to be concerned and if we sum up the pleasures
and pains according to the above process then we shall see whether the tendency is good or bad.
 Jeremy Bentham tells us that the value of a lot of pleasure or pain varies with its intensity, its
duration, its certainty, its uncertainty, its propinquity, its fecundity, its purity and its extent we
have already pointed out all these.
 These are what Bentham calls the seven dimensions of pleasure and pain and he believes that by
operating with them we can assess the value, by which he means the quantity or any sum of
pleasure or pain.
 He admits that, in practice, such calculations can seldom be made with accuracy, but he supposes
that they are, in principle, possible. He further observes that it is not to be expected that this
 process should be strictly pursued previous to every moral judgment or to every legislative and
judicial operation. It may be always kept in view and as near as the process actually pursued on
these occasions approaches it, so near will such a process approach the character of an exact one.
3. Features and Significance of Utilitarianism:
1. It has been claimed by renowned scholars that Bentham has not categorically used the term
utilitarianism though he was the father of the term. J. S. Mill, son of fames Mill, has been found
to use the concept liberally.
2. It is, however, undeniable that the structure of the doctrine was built up by Bentham. Again, the
analysis of the concept provides an excellent picture about the theory and some characteristic
features.
3. Theory of utilitarianism is a “felicific calculus” or it is also called a “Hedonistic calculus.” Why?
In Bentham’s opinion both pleasure and pain are measurable and the amount of one offsets that of
another. Since both of them are calculable they can be summed up.
4. The balance will determine what is pain and what is pleasure. In this calculation four dimensions
or phases are to be considered—the mention of which has already been noted. These are intensity,
duration, certainty and remoteness.
5. We have stated Bentham’s method of measurement. In his judgment man is rational and this
enables him to decide what will give him pleasure and from what source he will get pain.
6. If we study Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism we shall find that the entire fabric of the concept is
buttressed by the idea that man is quite reasonable and rational. Though there is considerable
doubt about this over-simplification, it is a fact that he accepted it.
7. Jeremy Bentham further says that happiness has a sacred side and that is most desirable. That is
why no one wants to neglect the pleasure and, to the contrary, makes all efforts to maximize
pleasure or happiness.
8. The concept that happiness is measurable is based on certain inferences, though these are
questionable. He states that happiness may be both stable and unstable.
9. Due to this, rational man desires to have stable or permanent pleasure. As to the measurability of
pleasure Bentham has categorically indicated the special importance of the legislator.
10. If we thoroughly and carefully analyse Bentham’s views regarding the measurement of pleasure
and pain it will appear that utility can be measured mathematically. That is, through calculation,
man can know how much pleasure he has got. In other words, both pleasure and pain are
mathematically calculable.
11. If we go through the various aspects of Benthamite theory of utility we shall find that he has not
given recognition to the concept of natural rights because he believed that there could not be
anything like natural rights.
12. These rights are unrelated to real situation; they are simply metaphysical or unreal. The
foundations of American Declaration of Independence or the French Declaration of Rights are the
natural rights.
13. They are not related to the utility or happiness of the citizens. Even the natural rights do not
account how much pleasure people will get from them. Bentham has said that even after
independence not a single slave got emancipation.
So what is the value of natural rights if they do not find their implementation in actual life?

 According to Wayper the doctrine of utility is a doctrine which is concerned with results and not
with motives. Utilitarians, particularly Bentham, hold the view that the goodness or badness of an
action cannot be determined from the motive.
 Only the results will say whether the decision is good or bad. Of course Bentham and his
followers have agreed to make a compromise in certain exceptional circumstances, but the motive
cannot be accepted as a general principle Wayper concludes according to the doctrine of utility
we cannot say whether an action is good until its consequences are known.
 The doctrine of utility is universal in the sense that all the conducts of man are expressed in one
form or other of utility. That is, there is utility behind every conduct. Bentham says of the
principle of ascetism; Asectics derive their perverted pleasure from ascetism.
 Ascetism has painful consequences. It is explicable in terms of hedonism, while hedonism is not
explicable in terms of ascetism.
 Wayper has drawn our attention to another feature of the principle of utility. The doctrine is
supposed to be objective, verifiable, unequivocal and clear. Bentham does not support the view of
the founding fathers of the American Constitution and the writers of the Federalist Papers. The
authors said that justice was the basis of government as well as its end. In Bentham’s
consideration this is improper.
 Why not happiness? He asks. Every man knows quite well what is happiness. But the idea of
justice is subjective and it varies from person to person. On the contrary, everyone knows what is
happiness and, according to Bentham, on rare occasions dispute arises on the question of
happiness.
 Hence it is a worthy criterion of policy determination. The doctrine of utility is not an imaginary
one. It is based on solid foundation. It is applicable and ascertainable, since it is measurable.
 The Industrial Revolution that took place in the second half of the 18th century changed the
economic, social, political and cultural aspects of society and, simultaneously, certain deep rooted
consequences and evils.
 An overall change in the entire structure of society was badly needed. Bentham thought that
changes were to be made but behind every change there must be consent of individuals.
 Again, they will give consent on the basis of utility they are supposed to get from the proposals.
The individuals will calculate utility and after that they will give consent.
 The individuals are intelligent enough and capable of giving correct opinion. Whether a city will
be made clear of slums, that may create heated controversy and it may happen that no definite
decision can be taken. But if both evils and advantages are placed before the general public or
policy-makers a decision could easily be taken. People will easily understand the exact picture of
slum life.
 Sabine says “The theory of pleasure and pain and also the sensationalist psychology
associated with it, had for Bentham another value besides that of enabling him to calculate
the effects of legislation. He believed that by using the psychology he could track down and
neutralize the “fictions” which he saw everywhere in social studies and political reasoning.”
 Bentham classifies pleasures and pains into simple and complex. According to Bentham there are
at least fourteen simple pleasures and twelve simple pains. Pleasures of health, sense, power and
piety, etc. are instances of simple pleasure. Privation, enmity, etc. are simple pains. Simple pains
and pleasures are the foundations of complex pains and pleasures.
Criticism:

 W. T. Jones criticizes Bentham’s doctrine of utility on the grounds that it is ambiguous, it is

insufficient and, finally, it is inapplicable. Let us see what Jones says. The principle of utility is
full of ambiguities, because it does not clearly state and define what it means and ultimately to
what it leads.
 What is meant by the greatest good of the greatest number? The number may be the greatest, but
the happiness may not be greatest, or the vice versa.
 There is no certainty that both number and good will happen in reality. That is, good of the
greatest number may not be the greatest good. Again, suppose a case. A can produce 100 units of
happiness for each of his five companions and the total happiness is 500 units. B can produce 100
units of happiness for each of his four companions and the total happiness stands at 400. Who is
acceptable? Who is better? It is very difficult to decide. Jones comments; “What appear on the
surface to be a single self-evident exhortation is really two separate exhortations, which
contradict each other.”
 Bentham’s theory of utility does not provide us sufficient explanation of human’ motives. Men
may generally seek pleasure and try to avoid pain. But it is not correct to generalize this motive.
Men are guided by a number of motives and seeking pleasure and avoiding pain are one of them.
Bentham does not recognize this.
 In fact, it is an over-simplification of human motive. Human nature and motives are so complex
that these cannot be explained in simple terms. Even a cursory analysis of human character
reveals that. Men want many things and with the passage of time his wants change. His want is
not permanently fixed on Bentham’s formula or simply pleasure and pain. Even he does not want
these at the cost of other’s interest. It is unfortunate that Bentham overlooks this.
 The intensity of pleasure cannot be measured against its duration, or its duration against its
certainty or uncertainty. Of all the dimensions mentioned by Bentham only two couples are
commensurable duration with extent and fecundity with purity.
 We can say that a pleasure or pain of a given intensity experienced by a person for two minutes is
equal to that same pleasure or pain experienced by two persons for one minute. We can also say
of a pleasure that its fecundity exceeds its purity. In other words, all his dimensions are not
equally applicable to practical situation.
 Criticizing Bentham’s principle of utility Plamenatz points out that he also confused
measurements of quantity with comparisons of effects. When a man has to choose between two
alternative pleasures, one of which is mild and lasting and the other intense and brief, he never
can choose the greater for the simple reason that neither is greater.
 Jeremy Bentham has said that while calculating pleasure and pain people generally estimate the
possible consequences of various actions and make comparisons among them and after that they
take decisions.
 They also think about alternative proposals. In substance, people do not take hasty decisions.
 They apply reason, past experience etc. The inference that can be drawn from this is that his
people are enlightened and aware of all the aspects of society and its functioning. But the fact is
that Bentham’s presumption is not true to fact and unsound assumption.
His inordinate sympathy for middle led him to propound such a theory. Moralists and idealists have
united in denunciation of its “base” materialism. He judged human beings as though they were swine.