Happiness and Utility Jeremy Bentham's Equation - PDF document

HappinessandUtilitythisphraseastheformulationofthebasicprincipletobeappliedinmoralsandlegislation.ItsprominenceinthepresentationofhisFragmentonGovernment(1776)conrmsthatstatus.Whathasseemedbothpuzzlingandperhapssignicantisthefactthattheformuladidnot,overalargepartofBentham’slongcareer,retainthatprominentposition.Asearlyas1780–onlyfourorveyearsafterwritingtheFragment–Benthamhadsubstantiallycompletedtheworkthatwastobepublished(thoughnotuntil1789)asAnIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation.Andthroughoutthatlongandintricatetextthephrase‘thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber’doesnotoccuratanypoint.Shackletonsuggested–andthesuggestionhasnotsofarbeenrefuted–thatthephraseisnottobefoundagaininanyofBentham’spublishedworksforoverfortyyearsafteritsappearanceinthe1776prefacetoAFragmentonGovernment.Thisfactmustnot,indeed,bemadetocarryaheavierloadofinterpretationthanitcanbear.Phrasesthatapproximatequitecloselytotheconsecratedformuladooccurinsomeoftheinterveningpublications.AnditmustalwaysbeborneinmindthatBentham’speculiarattitudetothepubli-cationofhisownworksmakesthedistinctionbetweenwhatwasandwhatwasnotcommittedtoprintatorbyanygivenperiodlesssignicantthanitmightotherwisebe.ItisatalleventsclearthatBenthamwasusingthe‘greatesthappiness’formulaquitefreelyinmanuscriptswrittensomeeightortenyearsbeforeitspublicreappear-ancein1820.Inoneinstance,indeed,acloseapproximationtothephrasewasactuallyprinted,thoughnotpublished,asearlyas1811–intheincompleteprinting,editedbyJamesMill,ofAnIntroductoryViewoftheRationaleofEvidenceYetitisstillworthaskingwhethersomesignicancemayproperlybeascribedtotherathercurioushistoryofaformulaBenthamregarded,atleastintermittently,asfundamentallyimportantforhistheoreticalposition.AndinthatconnectionitmaybebesttobeginbyexaminingthealternativeformulationBenthamadoptedinAnIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation.WhathedidtherewastoCf.ibid.,pp.79–80.However,intheseventeenthchapter(whichwastogrowintothecontinuationnowknownasOfLawsinGeneral),Benthamdoessaythat‘Ethicsatlargemaybedened,theartofdirectingmen’sactionstotheproductionofthegreatestpossiblequantityofhappiness,onthepartofthosewhoseinterestisinview’(AnIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation,ed.J.H.BurnsandH.L.A.Hart,in(London,1970),p.282).InmaterialseeminglyintendedforaconcludingchapterinOfLawsinGeneral(ed.H.L.A.Hart,in(London,1970),p.289),Benthamsaysthatthe‘directandpositive’purposeoflegislationis‘toaddtothehappinessofthecommunity’.Bowring,vol.6,p.6:‘Oflegislationtheproperendmaybestatedasbeingeverycommunity,thecreationandpreservationofthegreatesthappinesstothegreatestnumber. J.H.BurnstakeupwaysofexpressinghisbasicpositionthathehadalreadyusedAFragmentonGovernment(andindeedintheCommentontheofBlackstonefromwhichtheFragmentemergedintheautumnandwinterof1775–6).Thekeytermsare,ofcourse,‘utility’and‘principleofutility’.Theutilityofhumanactions,Benthamsaidinthe1776prefacetoAFragmentonGovernment,istheirtendencytopromotethecommonendofallsuchactions–happiness;andfromutilityinthissense,hewenton,wecan‘denominateaprinciplethatisrecognisedbyallmen’.This,hewrotefouryearslaterintheopeningchapterofAnIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation,istheprinciplethatistoserveas‘thefoundationofthatsystem,theobjectofwhichistorearthefabricoffelicitybythehandsofreasonandoflaw’.Andhethenattemptedtoformulatetheprincipleitselfmoreprecisely:Bytheprincipleofutilityismeantthatprinciplewhichapprovesordisapprovesofeveryactionwhatsoever,accordingtothetendencywhichitappearstohavetoaugmentordiminishthehappinessofthepartywhoseinterestisinquestionHappiness,moreover,istobeunderstood–inawayalreadyadum-bratedin1776butnowgreatlyelaborated–intermsofthebalanceofpleasureoverpain.HoweverwearetointerpretthecelebratedopeningwordsoftheIntroductiontothePrinciples–andBenthamhimselfimplicitlywarnedagainstattachingtoomuchweightto‘rhetoricanddeclamation’–wecannotignorethefactthatthisishowhechosetoopenwhatheplainlyenvisagedasamajorstatementofhisNaturehasplacedmankindunderthegovernanceoftwosovereignmasters,.Itisforthemalonetopointoutwhatweoughttodo,aswellastodeterminewhatweshalldo.Ontheonehandthestandardofrightandwrong,ontheotherthechainofcausesandeffects,arefastenedtotheirthrone.Theygovernusinallwedo,inallwesay,inallwethink:everyeffortwecanmaketothrowoffoursubjection,willservebuttodemonstrateandconrmitprincipleofutilityrecognisesthissubjectionYetalthoughthisapproachwastoleadBenthamintothecelebrated–evennotorious–attempttorepresenthappinessasquantiable,assomethingthatbothcouldandshouldbethesubjectofmeasurement,ofreckoning,ofcalculation–‘Mencalculate,’heinsists,‘allmen–hechosenottoadopt(oratleastdidnotadopt)inthisFragment,in,pp.415–16.,pp.11–12.,pp.173–4. HappinessandUtilitymajorstatementtheformulawhichfouryearsearlierhehaddescribedasa‘fundamentalaxiom’.Whywasthis?Benthamhimself,atleastinsomeofhisreminiscentandrevisionarystatements,seemstosuggestthathehadmadeatacticalmistakeinthe1780s.WhentheIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandreachedasecondeditionin1823,heappendedafootnotetotherstoccurrenceoftheterm‘principleofutility’.Therehearguesthatthealternativeterms‘thegreatesthappinessgreatestfelicityarepreferablebecause‘[t]heworddoesnotsoclearlypointtotheideasofasthewordsAndheaddsthecomment:Thiswantofasufcientlymanifestconnexionbetweentheideasofontheonehand,andtheideaofontheother,Ihaveeverynowandthenfoundoperating,andwithbuttoomuchefciency,asabartotheacceptance,thatmightotherwisehavebeengiven,tothisprinciple.Inanevenlaterstatement,madeinthecourseofhisaddressto‘hisfellow-citizensofFrance’onthesubjectof‘chambersofpeersandsen-ates’,Benthamsaidthathehadadoptedtheterm‘principleofutility’ratherthan‘greatesthappinessprinciple’‘incompliancewithDavidHumeDeferenceto‘custom’seemslessthancharacteristicoftheBenthamknowntohistory.YettherecanbenodoubteitheroftherespectinwhichtheyoungBenthamheldthenameshecitesorofthewidespreadcurrencyof‘utility’asacentralconceptinmoralandsocialphilosophyduringhisformativeyears.Itsrmholdonhismindbytheearly1780sisevincedbyhishavingcoined,forthosewho,likehimself,hadembracedthehedonisticquantifyingnotionofutility,theterm‘utilitarians’.Yettherewouldhavebeennothingtoprevent,rather(itwouldseem)muchtoencourage,theusebytheself-styledutilitarianofhisaxiomaticphraseof1776.Theprolongedquiescenceof‘thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber’stillcallsforexplanation.Twohypothesescallforfurtherdiscussion.Thereis,rst,theviewpresentedbyDavidLyonsinashortbutdenselypackedbookinwhichcrucialargumentsarecloselyrelatedtothekindofutilitarianismexpoundedintheIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislationLyonsdrawsattentiontothefactthatthephrase‘thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber’,p.11n.Bowring,vol.4,p.447n.BenthamMSS,UniversityCollegeLondon,lxix.79:‘Idreamtt’othernightthatIwasafounderofasect...ItwascalledthesectoftheUtilitarians.’IntheInterestoftheGoverned:AStudyofBentham’sPhilosophyofUtilityandLaw(Oxford,1973). J.H.Burnsdoesnotoccurinthattext;andhegoesontopointoutthatitiscommonlyrepresentedasexpressingthe‘universalistic’characteroftheutilitarianposition.Hethenarguesthatthephrase‘doesnotoccur[intheIntroductiontothePrinciples]becauseitdoesnotrepresent[Bentham’s]viewsaboutconictsofinterestwhenhewrotethebook’andthat‘anyuniversalisticconnotationsthatthephrasemayhavearealsoforeigntothatwork’.Lyonssuggeststhatanalternativeinterpre-tationofBentham’smeaning–alsomistakenbutmoreplausible–isthattheprincipleofutilityis‘parochial’,inthesensethat‘noteveryoneistakenintoaccount,butonlythosewithinone’scom-NowitiscertainlythecasethatBenthamverycommonly–moreoftenthannot,itwouldseem–stateshisprinciplewithreferenceto‘thecommunity’,‘thecommunityingeneral’,orsomesuchphrase;but–itwillbearguedherelater–thoseformulationsdonotsupporttheweightofinterpretationLyonsplacesuponthem.ForthemomentitisnecessarytofollowthedevelopmentofLyons’sargumentfurther,forheseekstoshowthatcommunity-directed‘parochialism’,thoughanimportantelementin,oraspectof,Bentham’sutilitarianism,isnotinitselfasufcientaccountofthebasicprincipleofthatsystem.Bentham,infact,accordingtoLyons,isadvocatinga‘differential’principle,involvingadualstandard.ThekeytothisinterpretationisfoundinthelastchapterofAnIntroductiontothePrinciples.Whatemergesthere,Lyonsargues,isBentham’sconcern,notwiththose‘affected’byhumanactions,butwiththosewhose‘direction’–orindeed‘government’–isinvolvedinthoseactions.ThedualityarisesfromBentham’sdistinctionbetweenprivateethics,whichdirectsonlytheagenthimself,sothatinterestorhappinessaloneisinvolved,andpublicethics,concernedwithmeasuresofgovernmentintheusualsenseoftheterm,theobjectofwhichmust,accordingtoBentham’sprinciple,betheinterestsoftheentirecommunity–thatis,ofallitsmembers.AttheheartofLyons’sdefenceofthecoherenceandtenabilityofthedifferentialprincipleheattributestoBenthamisthecontentionthatthelatter,atthisstageofhisthinking,believedinanaturalharmonyamongtheinterestsofdifferentindividualswithinthesamecommunity.Ithastobesaidthatsomeelementsinthisinterpretationseemtobelessthansecurelyrootedinthetextonwhichtheanalysisis–perhapstoonarrowly–concentrated.Thusthesuggestionthat,inBentham’sconception,privateethicsisconcernedsolelywiththeindividualagent’sself-directiontowardshisownmaximumhappinessIbid.,p.24.Cf.ibid.,pp.29–30. HappinessandUtilityseemshardtosquarewithsuchphrasesinthenalchapteroftheIntroductiontothePrinciplesasthese:Thereisnocaseinwhichaprivatemanoughtnottodirecthisownconducttotheproductionofhisownhappiness,andofthatofhisfellow-creaturesactwhichpromisestobebenecialuponthewholetothecommunity(himselfincluded)eachindividualoughttoperformofhimselfAgain,itishardtosustainthedistinctionLyonsseekstodrawbetweenBentham’sprivateethicsandlegislation.Hesuggeststhat,whilelegislationmanifestly‘interferes’inhumanbehaviourwithsanctionstobackitsinterference,Benthamcanspeakonly‘inalooseandmis-leadingway’ofprivateethicsas‘interfering’insomeanalogoussense.Privateethics,accordingtoLyons,‘simplyjudgesactsofordinaryindividuals’:sanctions‘arenotemployedasbyprivateYet,inOfLawsinGeneral(originallyacontinuationoftheverychapteronwhichLyonsrestshiscase)Benthamsays,Toethicsitbelongstoascertainthecasesinwhichontheonehandthepunishment,andontheothertherewardofthemoralsanctionoughttoapply;andtoinstructamanhowtoavoidtheoneandobtaintheother.AndinChapterXVIIoftheIntroductiontothePrinciplesitself,whenheisdiscussingthelimitedscopethelegislatorhasindealingwithsuchmattersasdrunkennessandfornication,Benthamremarksthat‘Allhecanhopetodo,istoincreasetheefcacyofprivateethics,bygivingstrengthanddirectiontotheinuenceofthemoralsanction.’CertainlyBenthamwishedtodrawadistinctionbetweentheprovincesofprivateethicsandoflegislation;butthatdistinctionwasnottobedrawnasrigorouslyasLyonssuggests.AtruerimpressionofwhatwasintendedisgivenwhenBenthamsays,inOfLawsinGeneralthat‘whereverthepunishmentofthepoliticalsanctionoughttoapply,therealsooughtthatofthemoral:inthisrespectthereforethiswholeworkstillbelongstoethics’.Itisofcoursetruethat,withinthisethicalcontinuum,Benthamwasthroughouthislongcareerpredominantly–evenoverwhelmingly–concernedwiththepublicratherthanwiththeprivatesphere.Hisutilitarianismwassuch(Lyonsrightlysays)asto‘demandprimaryconcentrationonlaw,politics,andgovernment’.Whathepublishedin1789asAnIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislationhadbeenwritten,hetellsusinthepreface,,p.285.IntheInterestoftheGoverned,pp.56–7.,p.219.,p.290.,p.219.IntheInterestoftheGoverned,p.4. J.H.Burnswith‘nootherdestinationthanthatofservingasanintroductiontoaplanofapenalcodeinterminis,destinedtofollowinthesameAnddespitethebroadertitleunderwhichthe(stillincomplete)wasthenpublished,itismadeclearintheprefacethattheauthor’sconcernis,allbutexclusively,withlegislationand‘legislativescience’.Thispointcallsforspecialemphasisnotonlybecauseithassooftenbeenoverlooked(ormentionedinpassingonlytobesubsequentlyneglected),butbecauseitprovidestheessentialcontextforourunderstandingofwhatLyonscallsthe‘parochial’aspectofBentham’sutilitarianprinciple.Itwaspreciselybecausehisargumentswereprimarilyaddressedto‘legislators’thatBenthamconstantlyreferredto‘thecommunity’,‘thecommunityingeneral’,andsoon.Itwas–andforthatmatteritis–withtheinterestsofthecommunitythatanylegislator,anylegislature,mustbeprimarily–indeed,allbutexclusively–concerned.Thisdoesnot,however,entailthedenialofuniversalityinBentham’sfundamentalprinciple,unlesswearetoconstruethe‘parochialism’ofmanyofitspracticalapplicationsasentailingthetotaldisregardofanyinterestslyingoutsidetheboundsofthelegislator’s‘parish’.Suchaviewwouldindeed,asLyonsemphasizes,have‘frighteningpossibilitiesintherealmofinternationalrelations’.AndeveninthemanuscriptslaterprintedasPrinciplesofInternationalLawBenthammayseemtobetakingthe‘parochial’view.‘Theendofconduct’,heargued,‘whichasovereignoughttoobserverelativetohisownsubjectsoughttobethegreatesthappinessofthesocietyconcerned.’Yet,aftercitingthispassage,LyonsgoesontoacknowledgethatBentham,havingposedthequestionwhetherthelegislatorshouldapplyininternationalaffairs‘thesamestandardofhiscommunity’shappiness’asininternalmatters,arguesratherthattheappropriatecriterioninthewidercontextis‘thecommonandequalutilityofallnations’.Itishardnottoreadthisasimplying–orpresupposing–a‘universalism’capableoftranscendingwhatever‘parochialism’Bentham’sprincipleofutilitymaysometimesseemtosustain.Moregenerally,itseems,weshouldinterpretBentham’sreference,whenstatinghis‘principleofutility’,to‘thepartywhoseinterestisinquestion’,asreferring,nottothosewhoseconductis‘directed’,buttothosewhoseinterestsare‘affected’byagivenaction.This,ofcourse,makestheprincipleoneofgreat–perhapsofexcessive–exibility.,p.1.Itisworthnotingthatthepaginationofthe1789editionis,forthisreason,inlower-caseromannumerals.IntheInterestoftheGoverned,pp.102–3,citingBowring,vol.2,p.537.Cf.,contrastingly,Lyons,IntheInterestoftheGoverned,p.32:‘Theintereststobepromotedaretheinterestsofthosebeing“directed”ratherthanthosewhomaybe HappinessandUtilityTheimportantpoint,however,istorecognizethattheprincipleis–thatitsfocus,sotospeak,canbelengthenedorshortenedinaccordancewiththepracticalneedsoftheindividualinquestion(whetherasaprivatepersonorasalegislator).Theuniversalityoftheprinciplestands,thoughthescopeofitsapplicationwillvaryfromonesetofcircumstancestoanother.Inallthisthereisdoubtlesssomedangeroflosingsightoftheproblemoriginallyposedhere:theproblemofBentham’suseandnon-useofthephrase‘thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber’.Lyonsseestheperiodofnon-usesimplyasareectionofthefactthatBenthamdidnot,atleastwhenwritingtheIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation,holdthe‘universalistic’formoftheutilitariantheory.The‘greatesthappiness’formulawouldindeedconveythatkindof‘universalism’,andBenthamhimself‘usestheforjustsuchreasonsinmanyofhiswritings’.onthisview,avoidedtheformulaintheIntroductiontothePrinciplesandelsewherebecausethepositionhetookinthosecontextswasnon-universalistic;butheadopteditwhereandwhenhewastakingauniversalisticposition.Thisisatbestadebatableinterpretationoftheevidence.When,inworkspublishedinthe1820s,Benthamre-established(ashehadalreadydoneinmanuscriptsoftheprevioustenyearsorso)thephrase‘greatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber’asanessentialelementintheexpositionofhistheory,hedidsoinboth‘parochial’and‘universalist’contexts.Thus,inthe1823PrinciplesofaConstitutionalCode,Benthamusestheformulawithanexplicitrestrictionofitsapplicationto‘themembersofthispoliticalButinmaterialfrommuchthesametimehewrote,withtheConstitutionalCodeinview:Insayingtheproperendofgovernmentisthegreatesthappinessofall,or,incaseofcompetitionandtotheextentofthecompetition,thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber,itseemstomethatIhavemadeadeclarationofpeaceandgoodwilltoallmen.Toomuchshouldnotbemade,oneithersideoftheargument,ofafairlycasualpassageincorporatingoneofBentham’snotuncharacteristicscripturalechoes.Forwhatitisworth,however,theremarkhasa‘universalistic’ratherthana‘parochial’bearing.Ibid.,p.24.Cf.Lyons’sexemplicationofthetwocategoriesinBentham’swritings:ibid.,p.25n.3.Bowring,vol.2,p.269.FirstPrinciplesPreparatorytoConstitutionalCode,ed.P.Schoeld,in1990),pp.211–12n.Thetextisessentiallythatcited(fromBowring,vol.2,p.6)byLyons,IntheInterestoftheGoverned,p.101.ItwaswritteninAugust1822.Forthelastsevenwordscf.Luke2.14:‘peace,goodwilltowardmen’. J.H.BurnsAtallevents,itwouldseemthatsomeotherexplanationisneededforthevirtualdisappearanceofthe‘greatesthappiness’phrasefromBentham’swritings,andforitssubsequentreappearanceandindeeditsalmostabsolutepreponderanceinhislaterwork.ThesecondofthetwohypothesesmentionedaboveinthisconnectionwasadvancedbyShackletoninthelatterpartofthearticlealreadycited.There,havingillustratedwhathejustlycallsthe‘outpouring’oftheformulainBentham’sworkfrom1820onwards,helinksitwith‘socialunrestinBritainattheendoftheNapoleonicwars’andwithBentham’sinvolvementintheaccompanyingsurgeofpoliticalradicalism.Morespecically,hepointstotheoccurrenceofthephraseinthearticleon‘Government’writtenbyJamesMillforthe1820SupplementtoEncyclopædiaBritannica.Shackletonnotesthatthearticlehadbeenwritten‘atthelatestbeforetheendofJuly1820’.(Itwasinfact‘apparentlynishedby11May1820,anditwaspublishedin)Hethenasks:Isnottheassumptionmoreplausiblethananyother,inthelightoftheknownevidence,thatitwasJamesMillwho,extractingtheformulafromthepartlyforgottenpagesoftheFragmentongovernment,showedBenthamthatitstillhadrelevanceandeffectiveness?Attractivethoughitmaybe,thishypothesisis–atleastasstated–untenable.ThephrasewasbeingusedagainbyBenthaminunpublishedwritingsfromatleastasearlyas1811.ItistruethatShackleton’shypothesismightbeadvancedinarevisedform,sinceJamesMillwascollaboratingcloselywithBenthamatthatearlierperiod.Specically,heseemstohavebeenatworkasearlyasthesummerof1809onwhatbecameAnIntroductoryViewoftheRationaleofEvidence,inwhich(asnotedabove)aversionofthe‘greatesthappiness’phrasewascertainlyused.Itisalsonoteworthythatsomeconsiderationwasgiven,inthesummerof1810,tothepossibilityofasecondeditionofAFragmentonGovernment,inwhichtheBenthamicformofthephrasehadrstappeared.Nothingcameofthis,andthereisinanycasenoevidenceofJamesMillhavingbeeninvolvedintheproject,suchasitwas.ItwouldthereforebehardtosustaintheviewthatMill‘rediscovered’aformulathathadotherwiseslippedoutofBentham’smind.R.A.Fenn(ed.),ATextbookforUtilitarians:JamesMill’sArticlesintheEncyclo-pædiaBritannica,1818–1823(Toronto,1991),p.272.Shackleton,‘GreatestHappinessoftheGreatestNumber’,p.1480.Cf.n.6above.Comment/Fragment,in,p.xxxiin.3.NoreferencetothisprojecthasbeenfoundinBentham’scorrespondenceatthetimeorlater,notisitmentionedinAlexanderBain’sJamesMill:ABiography(London,1882),whichotherwiserecordsmuchofBentham’sactivityintherelevantperiod. HappinessandUtilityWhatdoesremainacceptableandpersuasiveinShackleton’shypo-thesisisthesuggestionthatthere-emergenceof‘thegreatesthappi-nessofthegreatestnumber’andindeeditssubsequentdominanceinBentham’sstatementsofhisfundamentalpositionconstitutedeningcharacteristicsoftheradicalismofhislateryears.Therehas,ofcourse,beenmuchdiscussion,andthereisstillroomfordivergentconclusionsconcerningthedirectionandthechronologyofBentham’sdevelopment.Whatdoesseemtobethecaseisthatsomethingsignicanttookplaceinhispoliticaldevelopmentinorabout1808–9.Eventhen,tobesure,thebestpartofadecadewastopassbeforehefullyandpubliclydeclaredhisallegiance;butthefactremainsthatforthelasttwentyyearsandmoreofhislifeBenthamwasacommittedradicaldemocrat.Thatisthecontextinwhichweshouldseethecentralimportance,intheselateryears,oftheformulahehadadoptedinthe1770s:‘thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber’.Aformulaoriginallystatedinthesomewhatesotericcontextofanan-onymouscritiqueofBlackstone’saccountofEnglishlawnowbecame–wemaysay–apoliticalslogantobeusedwithpositivepolemicalpurposesinview.Politicshere,moreover,may(forthemomentatleast)beseeninafairlynarrow,thoughcruciallyimportant,sense.Thediscussion,thatistosay,neednottakeintoaccounttheelaboratedetailofBentham’sanalysisandexpositionofadministrativeprocessesandinstitutionalarrangements.Whatisatissueisthefundamentalrelationshipbetweenrulersandruled.ForBenthamitwasamatterofobservationthat,ineveryexistingpoliticalsystemapartfrom‘theAnglo-AmericanUnitedStates’,thatrelationshipwasonebetween‘therulingfew’and‘thesubjectmany’.Thepointismaderepeatedlyinhislaterwritings.Forinstance,in‘FirstLinesofaProposedCodeofLaw’,writteninthespringandsummerof1821,Benthamsaysthatatalltimes,inallplaces,tillyesterday,andinthenewworld,themagistrate–thelegislator–suchisman’snature–havebeentyrants,tyrantshavingeachofthem,fortheobjectofhisactsassuch–notthegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber–buthisownsinglegreatesthappiness.Thustheinterestsofthosewhogovernarepursuedatthecostofthedeliberatesacriceofthewell-beingofthosewhomtheygovern.ThisSeeJ.R.Dinwiddy,‘Bentham’sTransitiontoPoliticalRadicalism,1809–10’,inhisRadicalismandReforminBritain,1750–1850,ed.H.T.Dickinson(LondonandRioGrande,1992),pp.273–90.LegislatoroftheWorld’:WritingsonCodication,LawandEducation,in,ed.P.SchoeldandJ.Harris(Oxford,1998),p.209.Ayearorsolater,writingon‘EconomyasappliedtoOfce’,Benthamsaidthat‘theparticularinterestoftherulingclassisinastateofnaturalanddiametricaloppositiontothatofthewholepeopleconsideredinthecorrespondentcharacterofsubjects’:inFirstPrinciplespreparatorytoConstitutional,in,ed.P.Schoeld,p.16. J.H.BurnsrunsdirectlycountertotheessentialprincipleofutilityasBenthamhadstateditattheoutset,anddevelopedittowardsthecloseofIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation.Buthowmuchmoreeffectiveitwas,aspoliticalrhetoric,tosay,notthatgovernmentwasbeingcarriedoninviolationoftheprincipleofutility,butthatrulerswerepursuingtheirownhappinessinsteadofthegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumberoftheirsubjects!ToBentham,ofcourse,thephrasewasstillmorethanwhathehadcalled,inacloselyrelatedcontext,‘rhetoricanddeclamation’.Itwasaformulatobeappliedconcretelyandasaccuratelyaspossible.ThatiswhyBenthamcontinued,almosttotheend,topuzzleoverthebestwayofexpressingthatessentialformula.Insomeofthematerialwrittenfor,andposthumouslyprefacedto,hisConstitutionalCode,thereisinterestingevidenceofthis.InapassagewritteninAugust1822,BenthamsaysTherightandproperendofgovernmentineverypoliticalcommunityisthegreatesthappinessofalltheindividualsofwhichitiscomposed.Sayinotherwords,thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber.Inspeakingofthecorrespondentrstprinciple,callitthegreatest-happinessprinciple.Benthamgoesontoexaminetherelationshipbetweentheformulationreferringto‘all’andthatwhichrefersto‘thegreatestnumber’.If–butonlyif–humanbeingsweresocircumstancedthatthehappinessofnoonebeingcameincompetitionwiththatofanyother–thatistosay,ifthehappinessofeachorofanyonecouldreceiveencreasetoanunlimitedamountwithouthavingtheeffectofproducingdecreaseinthehappinessofanyother,thentheaboveexpression[‘thegreatesthappinessofall’]mightservewithoutlimitationorexplanation.Butoneveryoccasionthehappinessofeveryindividualisliabletocomeintocompetitionwiththehappinessofeveryother.Henceitisthat,toserveforalloccasions,itbecomesnecessarytosaythegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber.AndBenthamadds,withoutfullydeveloping,apointthatisofparticularimportanceinthepresentdiscussion:‘If,however,insteadofthewordhappiness,thewordisemployed,thephraseuniversalinterestmaybeemployedascorrespondingindifferentlytotheinterestofthegreatestnumberastotheinterestofall.’Inthemanuscript,‘ConstitutionalCodeRationale’,inFirstPrinciples(asinn.34),p.232:cf.Bowring,vol.9,p,5. HappinessandUtilitymoreover,Benthamhasareminder–‘InsertrelationbetweentheimportofthewordandtheimportofthewordThesepassagesdidnotndtheirwayintoprintuntilalmostadecadeafterBentham’sdeathin1832;butthesameposition–coupledwiththeinsistencethat‘therightandproperendofgovernment’couldbeattainedonlyunderafullydemocraticrepresentativesystem–wasstatedinthepartoftheConstitutionalCodethatwasprintedandeventuallypublishedintheauthor’slifetime.Yetevenbetweentheprinting(completedin1827)ofwhatwasintendedtobetherstofthreevolumesandthepublication,onitsown,ofthatvolumethreeyearslater,Benthamhaddevelopeddoubtsabouttheformula.AndthosedoubtsarosepreciselyinanareamoreusuallyassociatedwithAlexisdeTocquevilleandJohnStuartMillthanwithBentham.Inthediscursiveessayhewroteinthesummerof1829onthegreatest-happinessprinciple–destinedfortheWestminsterReview,thoughlittleofitwasusedthere–Benthamwroteasfollows:Greatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber.Someyearshavenowelapsedsinceuponacloserscrutiny,reason,altogetherincontestablewasfoundfordiscardingthisappendage.Onthesurface,additionalclearnessandcorrectness[was]giventotheidea:atthebottom,theoppositequalities.Bethecommunityinquestionwhatitmay,divideitintotwounequalparts,calloneofthemthemajority,theothertheminority,layoutoftheaccountthefeelingsoftheminority,includeintheaccountnofeelingsbutthoseofthemajority,theresultyouwillndisthattotheaggregatestockofthehappinessofthecommunity,loss,notprot,istheresultoftheoperation.OfthispropositionthetruthwillbethemorepalpablethegreatertheratioofthenumberoftheminoritytothatofthemajorityBenthamthenwentontodemonstratehow,intheviewhehadnowformed,thecriterionof‘thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber’mightbeusedtojustifysacricingentirelythehappinessofabareminorityintheinterestsofabaremajority–andafortioritojustifysuchasacriceinthecaseofrelativelysmallminorities.HisexamplesarethoseoftheCatholicminorityinGreatBritainandtheProtestantFirstPrinciples,p.234andn.3,wheretheeditordirectsattentiontothediscussionofthematterinAnIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation,inpp.11–12.ConstitutionalCode,vol.1,in,ed.J.H.BurnsandF.Rosen(Oxford,1983),p.18:‘Ofthisconstitution,theall-comprehensiveobjectorendinview,is,fromrsttolast,thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber,namely,oftheindividuals,ofwhom,thepoliticalcommunityorstate,ofwhichitistheconstitution,iscomposed’.Theeditor,ThomasPerronetThompson,madestrictlylimiteduseofsomeofBentham’smaterialinthepublishedarticle–thecontextbeingthecontroversyprecipitatedbyMacaulay’sattack,intheEdinburghReview,onJamesMill’sessayonDeontologytogetherwithATableoftheSpringsofActionandtheArticleon,in,ed.A.Goldworth(Oxford,1983),p.309. J.H.BurnsminorityinIreland,eitherofwhich(heseemstoargue)could,onthe‘greatest-number’principle,beenslavedbytherelevantmajority.AndthiswouldnotbeconsonantwithwhatBenthamnowrmlydecidedshouldbecalledsimply‘thegreatesthappinessprinciple’.Thisargument,developedalmostattheendofBentham’slongcareer,perhapsservesonlytoconrmthehazardousnatureofthequantifyingexerciseonwhichhehadembarkedatitsveryoutset.Asithappens,Benthamhimselflookedbacktothosebeginningsinapassagethatimmediatelyfollowstheattempt,justexamined,toclarifytheformulationof‘thegreatesthappinessprinciple’:Intheyear1769orthereabouts,attheageofabouttwenty-one,itoccurredtoMrBenthamthattherelationrespectivelybornetothembywithnosmallpracticaladvantagebetakenforacommonbondofconnection,acommonclub-room,acommonstockforalltheseveralbranchesofartandscience,acommontrunkforallthebranches(thiswastheemblemhefoundinuse)for[of?]theEncylopaedicaltree.This,hegoesontosay,wasthenotionhehadapplied‘indetailintheworkcalledInthatcontext,beingconcernedwithpedagogicandlogicalissues,Benthamhadlittletosayaboutthepoliticalapplicationsofhistheorythatareofcentralinteresthere.Whathedoessaymay,however,meritmoreattentionthanithasusuallyreceived.Firstofallthen,‘GOVERNMENT,aliasPOLITICS’isdistinguishedfrom‘PRIVATEETHICS’–whichis‘inthemoreusualsenseoftheword’.Andpolitics,thusdistinguished,isitselfeither‘viz.INTERNALGOVERNMENT,and[INTERNATIONALGOVERNMENTandPOLITICS’.Theanalysisisthenmorefullydeveloped.Politics,maybeunderstoodthatbranchofwhichhasforitssubjecttheconductofGovernment,i.e.ofthemembersoftheorstateinquestion,astowardsthewholenumberofthemembersofthatsamecommunity;byPolitics,thatbranchofwhichhasforitssubjecttheconductofGovernment,asabove,astowardsthemembers,whetherrulersorsubjects,ofothersuchcommunities.Ibid.,pp.309–10.Ibid.,pp.310–11.Cf.,in,ed.M.H.SmithandW.H.Burston(Oxford,1983),pp.209–10.Inthatcontext,itmaybenoted,Benthamusedtheterm’todenote‘theuniversaltrunkofArts’,while‘’fullledthesamefunctioninrespectof‘Sciences’.Hehadfoundthe‘emblem’in,especially,theworkofd’Alembert:cf.,e.g.,,pp.159–60.TheGreek-derivedterminologyBenthamadoptedin(andwouldperhapshaveadoptedelsewhere,hadnotwisercounselsprevailed)hasnottendedtomakethisamoreaccessibletext.,in,p.204. HappinessandUtilityBenthamthengoesontoa‘DivisionofInternalGovernment’alonglinesand(settingasidehisGreek-derivedneologisms)usingtheterminologyhewastoemployafewyearslaterintheConstitutionalCodeThisexcursushashadtheincidentaleffectofconrmingthepointthatBentham’spoliticalthinkingisnottobeseenas(inLyons’sterm)‘parochial’.Moreimportantly,atthisstageofthediscussion,thematerialprovidesanotherillustrationofwhatmaywellseemtobeagap(thoughhardlyagulf)betweenthefundamentalethicalandpsychologicalprincipleofBentham’sutilitarianismandthespecictheoriesheclaimstoderivefromthatprinciple.Thegapmayindeedbebridgedbywhatmight,inrelationtoBentham’soriginal‘fundamentalaxiom’,becalledtheaxiomatamediafromwhichhisspecicprescriptionsareimmediatelyderived.Inthepoliticalsphere,whichhasbeenthemainfocusofthisdiscussion(andwhichwasindeedBentham’sownprimaryconcernatleastduringthelastphaseofhiscareer),thepointmaybeexempliedinanumberofways.Thustheminimizingof‘expense’andthemaximizingof‘aptitude’forgovernmentalofcecarrymoreweightatthislevelthantheminimizingofpainandthemaximizingofpleasure.Again,Bentham’simmensely(attimesobsessively)detailedprescriptionsintheConstitutionalCodefortheadministrativearrangementstobeadoptedby‘allnationsandallgovernmentsprofessingliberalopinions’may,bywayoftheaxiomatamedia,retainsomeconnectionwiththeoverarchinggreatest-happinessprinciple.These,however,arenotconnectionsthatareeithereasilyperceptibleorlikelytobehelpfultoconstitution-makers.Thereis,inanycase,amorefundamentalquestiontobeasked.Whathasthegreatest-happinessprincipleitselftodowithhappiness?ThediscussionherepassestothelevelofwhatCollingwoodcalled‘absolutepresuppositions’;andindeeddiscussionmay,atthatlevel,necessarilygivewaytoassertionandcounter-assertion.Yettheremaybeatleastonelegitimatequestiontobeasked–thequestionwhetherBentham’sgreatest-happinessprinciplecanserveasaneffectivecriterionformoraldecisionstakenbyindividualsfacedwithmoralchoices.Itseemstome(andImakenoclaimmoreambitiousthanthepersonalstatement)thattheprincipleisremotefromtherealitiesofsituationswheresuchchoiceshavetobemade.Noristhis(Isuggest)merelyaparticularcaseofsomethingthatmightbeseenasnecessarilytrueofanyformulapurportingtobegenerally–evenuniversally–applicabletodecisionsofthatkind.Itcould,forexample,bearguedthatthesameobjectiondoesnotapplytotheKantianprinciplethatotherpeopleshouldalwaysbetreatedasends,nevermerelyasmeans.Suchaprincipledoesofferacriterionitwouldmakesensetoapplytomanyofthechoiceswehavetomakeaswellastothemoregeneralshapingofawayoflife. J.H.BurnsAnotherapproachmayoffersomeadditionalilluminationhere.IfwereviewBentham’scontemporariesinsearchofagurewhomightbeseenasexemplifyingtheantithesisoftheBenthamicviewoflife,manynamesmightsuggestthemselvesandmight,inonecontextoranother,beappropriate.Rousseau,Burke,Kanthimself,Hegel–eachofthesewouldhaveaclaim,thougheachmightprove,oncloserinspection,tohavesomethingatleastincommonwithBentham.Thereis,however,agure–amanwhowasbornlessthantenyearsafterBenthamanddiedlessthanveyearsbeforehim–whomayprovidetherequisiteantithesis.WilliamBlake,Isuggest,bothembodiesthatantithesisandproclaimstheimperfectionofBentham’sunderstandingofhappiness.Twopassagesmayservetoillustratethepoint.Oneis,inevitably,HewhobendstohimselfajoyDoththewingedlifedestroy;ButhewhokissesthejoyasitiesLivesineternity’ssunrise.Andtheotherisallthemoretellingforitsexpressionofaview–anunderstanding–oflifeasfaraspossiblefromBentham’sutilitarianism:ManwasmadeforJoy&WoeAndwhenthiswerightlyknowThroughtheworldwesafelygo.Joy&WoearewovenneAClothingforthesouldivine.Undereverygrief&pineRunsajoywithsilkentwine.BenthammighthavedismissedallthisasMetternichdismissedtheHolyAlliance–‘Sublimemysticismandnonsense!’.InanycaseitwouldbequitewrongtorejectBentham’sutilitarianismonaccountofitsirrelevancewhereBlakemayclaimhisownkindofrelevance.ItmustalwaysbeborneinmindthatBentham’sinterestwaspreciselyinthoseareasinwhichitmade(andmakes)sensetoaskquestionsaboutlaw.Andthat,itmustbeemphasized,means(givenBentham’scomprehensiveviewoflawitself),askingquestionsaboutsocialpolicyandsocialcontrol.ItwastoanswerthosequestionsthatBenthaminvokedhisfundamentalaxiom,deployedhisaxiomatamedia,andappliedhispainstakingmethodofdetail.Itwas,moreover,theattempttoanswerthosequestionsthatledhimtowhatmaywellberegardedashismostprofoundlyoriginalpieceofthinking–hisanalysisoflawassuch,ofthenatureandlogicalstructureoftheconceptsoflawandofalegalsystem.ThisiswhatgivesOfLawsinGeneralitsuniquestatusinthemassivecorpusofBentham’swritings.AndinthepresentcontextitisnoteworthythatintheelaborateindextoHerbertHart’seditionofthattextthereareonlythreeentriesunder‘happiness’–allreferring HappinessandUtilitytoasinglepage;onlythree,again,under‘principleofutility’;andnoneatallunder‘utility’itself.Whatconclusionsdoesthissuggest?ItwouldcertainlybewrongtoconcludethatBentham’sprimaryconcernwithlawandwiththescienceoflegislationprecludedarealandsincereconcernforthepromotionofhappinessbyexpandingopportunitiesforthesatisfactionandgraticationofdesire.Opinionswilldiffer,astheyalwayshave,onhowfarhappinesscaninfactbepromotedinthisway,but,forwhatitisworth,Bentham’sthinking,inthesphereofprivateconduct,hadunquestionablyaliberatingorliberalizingtendency.Ifweturnfromethicstopolitics–inthesense,asbefore,ofthedispositionanddeploymentofpowerinsociety–therecanbenodoubtabouttherealityorthestrengthofBentham’seventualcommitmenttoradicaldemocracy.Yetitmaystillintheendbethecasethathismostpersistentandconsistentconcernslayneitherinethicsnorinpoliticsbutin.Hebelievedthatefciency,order,rationality,system,whendevelopedandsustainedinthebusinessofgovernment,administrationandjudicature,wouldproducebettersocietiesforhumanbeingstolivein.Inthishewassurelyright.Hemayevenhavebeenjustiedinsupposingthat,otherthingsbeingequal,menandwomenlivingundersuchasystemoflawandadministrationwouldbehappierthantheywouldhavebeenwithoutit.If‘thefabricoffelicity’meansessentiallyaframeworkwithinwhichmanysourcesofunhappinesscanbeminimizedandmanyopportunitiesforsatisfactionandenjoymentincreased,thenindeed‘thehandsofreasonandoflaw’aretheappropriateandindispensableinstrumentsforerectingsuchafabric.Again,Benthamdoeswellnodoubttoremindusthattheproblemsofdesigningandconstructingsuchafabricwillbecomplex.Wemaynotintheendbeconvincedthatweneed,inalltheirrigour,therebarbativeintricaciesof,say,Bentham’sConstitutionalCode;butitisstillthecasethat‘thereisnoKing’sRoad,noStadtholder’sGatetolegislative,anymorethantomathematicalscience’.IntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation,in,p.10. HappinessandUtility:JeremyBentham’sEquationUniversityCollegeLondonDoubtsabouttheoriginofBentham’sformula,‘thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber’,wereresolvedbyRobertShackletonthirtyyearsago.Uncertaintyhaspersisted