bentham essay on logic

popular homework editor website au

Year after year, we review dozens of reader nominations, revisit sites from past lists, consider staff favorites, and search the far-flung corners of the web for new celebration of new year essay for a varied compilation that will prove an asset to any writer, of any genre, at any experience level. This selection represents this year's creativity-centric websites for writers. These websites fuel out-of-the-box thinking and help writers awaken their choke palahnuik and literary analysis. Be sure to check out the archives for references to innovative techniques and processes from famous thinkers like Einstein and Darwin. The countless prompts, how-tos on guided imagery and creative habits, mixed-media masterpieces, and more at Creativity Portal have sparked imaginations for more than 18 years. Boost your literary credentials by submitting your best caption for the stand-alone cartoon to this weekly choke palahnuik and literary analysis from The New Yorker. The top three captions advance to a public vote, and the winners will be included in a future issue of the magazine.

Bentham essay on logic martin luther king jr essay questions

Bentham essay on logic

All are dismissed on the grounds that they are merely empty phrases that express nothing beyond the sentiment of the person who advocates them. Not representing verifiable reality, such phrases could not be considered useful. At the beginning of IPML Bentham offered the famous declamation that underscores the primacy of pains and pleasures in utilitarian theory:. There are two forms of hedonism expressed in this seminal passage: 1 psychological hedonism, which states that all motives of action are grounded in the apprehension of pain or the desire for pleasure; and 2 ethical hedonism, which holds that pleasure is the only good and actions are right in so far as they tend to produce pleasure or avoid pain.

As such, pain and pleasure are the final cause of individual action and the efficient cause and means to individual happiness. Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer? But how is the legislator to influence individual actions and gain conformity to his decisions? In effect, there is no such thing as a good or bad motive. When deciding whether to act or which act to undertake, a person must calculate as best as he can the pains and pleasures that may reasonably be expected to accrue to the persons including himself affected by the acts under consideration.

A similar calculation should guide the legislator in formulating laws. However, Bentham recognised that it was not normally feasible for an individual to engage in such a calculation as a preliminary to undertaking every act. For this reason he spoke of the general tendencies of actions to enhance happiness suggested by past experience as a sufficient guide in most situations.

To this end he developed rules to guide the lawmaker in the construction of a penal code, including the elements involved in the calculation of the mischief caused by offences and the appropriate punishments.

In general he followed Adam Smith in believing the individual to be the best judge of his or her own interests, but the simplicity of this proposition is deceptive see Engelmann This involves the individual in imagining what will occur if she were to act in a certain manner. For Bentham, the most important elements of the external environment in which a person imagines outcomes are the penalties and rewards laid down by law and those deriving from other educative and moral institutional arrangements and practices, including the sanction exercised by public opinion.

In this sense, law and other agencies may be used to construct interests by providing individuals with the motives to pursue courses of action beneficial to the community. It is the individual who then must correctly perceive where her interests lie; she must imagine the expected outcomes the legislator has determined.

Second, Bentham recognised that explaining action in terms of interest is potentially circular. If we mean, acting to pursue our interest in the widest sense, then the statement is tautological b, 93n. Bentham recognised the possibility of altruistic actions, and frequently alluded to his own philanthropy when recommending schemes to further the public good.

However, if not all action is motivated by self-interest in the narrow or strict meaning of the term, then how far can the self-preference principle be considered a reliable guide for the legislator in constructing motives? While it is not true that everyone always acts in his or her self-interest, it is best that the legislator design institutions and law as if this were in fact true. Self-interested acts are the norm; altruism is the exception. Third, although individuals may in general be the best judges of their own interests, they may not always judge wisely.

But if people incorrectly perceive their interests, then the legislator may be misled in constructing the appropriate motivation. This means that assessing the value of the constituent elements of interest pains and pleasures is a tricky business for the legislator; he must accurately observe the ways people behave, deduce the motives behind their actions, and encompass this knowledge in the sanctions of law.

The aim is to tell individuals what they should not do, but also to provide them with motives pains and pleasures in prospect sufficient to divert their desires into channels best designed to serve the public interest. In this way government could educate its citizens to make more effective choices, or at least guide them into more appropriate paths to achieve their real interests —43, I, Bentham recognised that neither the individual nor the legislator could strictly follow the process he described.

As is well known, while adhering to the basic Benthamic analysis of motives, in Utilitarianism J. This tended to undermine the aggregative dimension of the theory laid down by Bentham. Bentham occasionally suggested that pains and pleasures might be evaluated in relation to income or wealth, but he was aware of the limitations of this approach.

It is in the nature of the case that the amount of increase in happiness will not be as great as the increase in wealth; the addition of equal increments of money will eventually bring successively less of an increase in happiness. One of its practical consequences for a utilitarian such as Bentham is that, where choices present themselves between giving an additional increment to a rich man or to a poor man, more happiness will result from giving it to the poorer of the two.

Also, the analysis underscores why money cannot be a direct measure of utility, since the utility represented by a particular sum of money will vary depending on the relative wealth of the person who receives it. Moreover, it is evident that diminishing marginal utility is also a feature of the additional increments of pleasure a person may experience beyond a certain point; equal increments of pleasure will not necessarily add to the stockpile of happiness if a person has reached a saturation point.

For Bentham, the unhappiness created by the loss of something will usually have a greater impact on a person than the happiness brought about by its gain to someone else —43, I, —7. Of course, if the loser is a wealthy person and the gainer a poor man, this will not hold.

But in the normal run of things, this is why Bentham gave a higher priority to the protection of property by law and why he held that the alleviation of suffering demands more immediate attention than plans to produce wealth —54, III, , Raising public funds through taxation for vital services would be justified by the principle, as would emergency expropriation of property in times of war or famine, usually with compensation paid to the property owner. For Bentham, the significance of this principle as a practical guide could hardly be overstated.

He came to see that such a principle could justify inordinate sacrifices by a minority, however that minority might be composed, in the interest of enhancing the happiness of a majority. He considered this a false conclusion, but one that needed to be addressed. The less the numerical difference between the minority and majority, the more obvious the deficiency in aggregate happiness will be a, Logically, then, the closer we approximate the happiness of all the members of the community, the greater the aggregate of happiness.

The universal interest relates to interests that are shared by everyone, and only when it is impossible for government to contrive policies to achieve this end is a distribution of happiness less than universal or less than equal justified b, However, the number of decisions made by governments that are genuinely of universal reach are relatively few and may be limited to national defence and the framework of individual rights securities.

Beyond that, redistributive policies invariably involve unequal sacrifices and benefits. This means that the legislator must employ a utilitarian calculation in which the pain experienced by the few is reduced to the minimum necessary to produce benefits for the many; only on this basis may pleasures be summed and pains subtracted in order to produce the rationale to justify the best policy. Related to this conception of the universal interest is the egalitarian commitment that in arriving at the appropriate law or policy the interests of each and all must count, and count equally , I, This does not mean that optimal utility is not the goal, but simply stresses that optimal utility will be more likely achieved where there is an approximate equality in the distribution of the basic requirements of happiness Postema Green forward, argue that calculations of total utility fail to respect the distinctiveness of persons and thereby place their interests at perpetual risk Rawls , 22—27; Nozick , 28—35; see the discussions in Ten , 13—37; Rosen , Chs.

If deterrence can be achieved by punishing an innocent bystander when the real culprit cannot be caught or brought to justice, then why should the bystander not be punished? Because public utility would be maximised by making an example of an innocent bystander just as much as by punishing the person who was actually guilty of the offence but who has not been apprehended, it seems the utilitarian ought to support the punishment. But this is not only intuitively wrong, it is also wrong because there is a real danger that violations of security would lead to other such violations, with no principled basis to cease inflicting them.

Basic securities must be afforded to each and every member of the community, and violations of these vital interests are not justified, whether they be perpetrated by other individuals or government, since they contravene the distributive elements of utilitarian theory.

From early on in his utilitarian theorizing, Bentham understood that the achievement of utilitarian objectives in practice required the translation of the utility principle into elements amenable to implementation in ways that the philosophically abstract principle itself could not be.

Concrete manifestations of happiness, for example, could be found in personal security and reduced crime rates, enhanced health and declining death rates, broader opportunities for education, the reduction of diseases caused by sewage pollution, and so on. This deficiency did not, however, prevent him from developing the theoretical apparatus to direct the formulation of such laws.

This was more than the Humean observation that utility is embedded in customary rules that have evolved over time. Where the jurist detects deficiencies, new rules and precepts must be developed that demonstrably accord with the utility principle. The greatest happiness principle sets the over-arching objective and is the critical standard against which existing practices are to be judged. As such, it stands ever ready to be summoned forth whenever new guidelines are needed, subordinate ends conflict, or existing laws require amendment, refinement, or further elaboration.

However, in practice it is the secondary elements of the theory that do the work of producing beneficial outcomes. In this way, they give practical concreteness to the philosophically abstract end of the greatest happiness. The subordinate ends of civil law are security, subsistence, abundance, and equality, in this order of priority.

This is entirely consistent with the view that, properly understood, the utility principle entails a presumption in favour of an equal distribution, unless there is compelling empirical evidence that utility would not be served by such a policy. However, he refused to countenance the idea that policies to redistribute wealth at the cost of security would be beneficial either to social prosperity or individual wellbeing.

Bentham believed that facilitating individuals in the pursuit of their interests in a free market is what government should do, because this is the proven best way to maximise the public good. Where laissez-faire does not produce the best result, however, the legislator must act in other direct and indirect ways to produce the optimal outcome.

But radical schemes for property re-distribution are ruled out; the axiomatic requirement that each be treated equally, that the happiness of each be counted, justified policies to equalize the distribution of goods only where this could be achieved without disappointing legitimate expectations. Just as the primary purpose of civil law is economic security and national prosperity, so it draws powerful support from the protection afforded persons, property and expectations by the threat of punishment —43, III, To this end, utilitarian penal law is framed in terms of the principal objective of deterrence, but it also embraces the secondary ends of disablement, moral reformation, and compensation see Crimmins b.

The effectiveness of the theory in practice depends on two additional features: offences must be classified solely on the basis of the harm perpetrated, and there must be an appropriate proportion between crimes and punishments. It is because of its failure to satisfy the first feature that Bentham rejected the prevailing criminalization of consensual sexual acts, and developed the first systematic defence of sexual liberty in the English language.

In settling the required proportions of punishment, Bentham recognised he had burdened the legislator with a vastly complex task—the calculation of the correct quantity and type of pain needed to achieve the desired ends, in particular the objective of deterrence.

Bentham first examined the utility of the death penalty in the s when he delineated the principles of penal law —43, I, —50; see also , Ch. In sum, it is a special application of his utilitarian theory of punishment. The framework of analysis is presented as an objective, neutral exercise, by which the benefits and costs of the death penalty in cases of murder are assessed in comparison with life imprisonment with hard labour.

All things considered, Bentham believed the weight of the calculation worked against the death penalty on the grounds of deterrence, the fact that it is inequable in its application, falling mainly on the shoulders of the poor, and because it is a form of punishment that is irremissible in the face of judicial error.

By , however, he abandoned the exceptions and argued that no offence warranted capital punishment UC cvii. Subordinate ends are also evident in the design and management of the panopticon prison: security and economy are foremost, but tempered by humanity and accountability. This view of the panopticon has opened up some interesting lines of discourse on the encroaching methods of control and surveillance in contemporary liberal societies Brunon-Ernst The end of economy determined that the panopticon prison should be a private self-sustaining operation not requiring financial assistance from the public purse.

Security determined that the community be protected from convicted criminals, and severity in punishment was to serve the ends of deterrence and reformation. But security also required that the inmate be protected from cruel treatment, and humanity determined that prisoners should be deprived only of liberty not health or life. Prisoners were to be kept clean and their labour made productive and profitable, including the development of skills that might be useful to them when released.

In support of these objectives, Bentham invoked several devices to effect transparency and accountability in prison government. And, just as the panopticon was to be monitored by the publication of regular reports, so reports of government activity were required to keep the democratic polity informed and facilitate the accountability of public officials. When Bentham turned his thoughts to constitutional law in earnest in the s, partly inspired by constitution-making in parts of southern Europe, it was with the conviction that all states in which the institutions of representative democracy already existed or in which they could be introduced were fertile soil for the utilitarian pannomion.

The administrative, electoral and legislative details of this project occupied much of the last decade of his life, with its core ideas discussed in the pages of a variety of works in addition to the Code , such as Securities Against Misrule , First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code , and Official Aptitude Maximized; Expense Minimized. The subsidiary principles of accountability, efficiency, and economy underpinned the institutional design and procedural operations elaborated in these writings.

It is imperative, therefore, to devise mechanisms that will ensure that only by acting in the public interest could they promote their own interests. Given the extensive powers Bentham envisaged the thirteen ministries of the reformed government would possess—far more power in the areas of public health, education, and relief of the poor and indigent than existed at the time—further safeguards would be required.

Intellectual and active aptitude were to be tested through an examination process, though this would come to naught if the appointed official did not possess the appropriate moral aptitude —43, IX, Other devices designed to ensure, encourage, and test the required aptitude of public officials include: 1 the precise definition of responsibilities attached to each office, against which the actions of officials could be judged by either a superordinate official or the public; 2 the principle of subordination, according to which every official was subordinate to another who could punish him for inefficiency in the performance of his tasks; 3 complete exposure to legal prosecution of all officials for wrong-doing; 4 the elimination of the practice of handing out unwarranted titles of honour to party supporters and other favourites; 5 complete publicity of government business and the elimination of secrecy; and 6 freedom of the press, speech and association see Rosen , Ch.

In the first sense of the term it is seemingly impossible for there to be a law that deliberately functions contrary to the will of the legislature. However, Bentham also held that all political authority, no matter what form it takes, is necessarily limited by its capacity to compel obedience from the people. And in Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence he explained that this implies two volitions, both of which are necessary components of a complete theory of sovereignty: on the one hand, the enactments of a legislature and, on the other, the will of the people to obey those enactments.

The POT would scrutinize the actions of elected representatives, public and judicial officials, prosecuting charges where they are found remiss in their responsibilities, censoring misrule and imposing penalties when applicable. In these terms, the POT would be the leading security against the misuse and abuse of power , Vital to the functioning of the POT is the dissemination of information. In the first instance this would require the establishment of a public archive of government actions and activities containing records of law, policy, legislative debate, and statistics, which the government would be constitutionally required to make available to the public by a freedom of information provision in the constitutional code to ensure transparency.

Secondly, it would require an unshackled press to ensure widespread publicity and the freedom to criticize unimpeded by censorship or gagging orders. Here Bentham drew upon his essay On the Liberty of the Press, and Public Discussion to point out the dangers of laws designed to limit these liberties.

Bentham did not consider that the effectiveness of the POT as a check on misrule could be undermined by secret government methods to limit the flow of information, nor did it occur to him that a press dominated by the views of one class could subvert the veracity of the information it disseminated. He pinned his faith on transparency and publicity Postema , Ideally, the public would be adequately informed, and the POT would be constituted by those among the public who were both knowledgeable and concerned about the issues before it.

Its judgements could change as new evidence came to light or as new arguments were enunciated, and it could be fragmented or unified in its view in proportion to the variety of individual opinions expressed. During the revolutionary years in France, Dumont fed his ideas into the debates over judicial, legal, penal and legislative reform, and if his proposals had little impact on the social and political improvements undertaken they yet contributed to the direction of French liberalism Champs It was from this platform that Bentham was able to promote himself as a potential codifier of the laws in countries near and far.

Despite the herculean efforts of Dumont, however, his ideas received a mixed reception in France see Champs , Ch. On the other hand, self-interest and the utility principle was rejected by Germaine de Stael as an impoverished grounding for moral duty, and rejected by other reformers such as Benjamin Constant who grounded their liberalism on natural rights. Earlier, in , Bentham had counselled the French National Convention to divest itself of its colonies on the grounds of their disutility though the text Emancipate Your Colonies!

Santander, who was more inclined to resist the influence of the Catholic Church, restored it to the curriculum of the universities when he became President of the newly constituted state of Colombia in A year later he published in Greek A General Theory of Administrative Systems and especially of the Parliamentary One, Accompanied by a Short Treatise on Justices of the Peace and Juries in England , containing a defense of representative government and advocating a judicial system based on utilitarian principles, replete with references to Bentham Peonidis David Hoffman first introduced utilitarian ideas into legal education in America at the University of Maryland in the early s.

The reviews paid particular attention to the systematic presentation of the theory of civil law, which also impressed itself on the teaching of law in the newly independent states of South America, where property rights were a matter of considerable importance in the aftermath of the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese empires. Thomas Cooper, who left England for the United States in with Joseph Priestley, from whom he initially derived his utilitarianism, was a confirmed Benthamite by the s and the intended recipient of writings Bentham entrusted to John Quincy Adams.

Thereafter Cooper employed utilitarian principles in his writings on law and political economy, most notably in Lectures on the Elements of Political Economy Edward Livingston, the famous author of codes of law for Louisiana, corresponded with Bentham, who sent him books for his research. Inspired by Bentham, Vale was in favour of humane penal laws that proportioned penalties to the objective of deterrence and an advocate of state intervention to alter the social circumstances that fostered crime.

Mill, and Henry Sidgwick. Throughout the following century his influence continued to be felt, particular in discussions of moral and legal philosophy and economic theory and practice. In he was hired to tutor J. Mill in Roman law, began attending meetings of the Utilitarian Society established by the younger Mill in , and in was appointed to the Chair of Jurisprudence at the newly founded University of London, where he was the first in England to introduce utilitarian ideas into legal education.

Around this time, however, partly in response to the challenge of T. Though, like Bentham, an advocate of representative democracy based on universal suffrage, Mill also made several proposals to temper the potential excesses of unconstrained majoritarian institutions. However, he also developed the theory of diminishing marginal utility, furnishing the legislator with a conceptual tool by which to address the uneven distribution of social happiness.

The collectivist conclusions Bentham drew from this principle were modest in scope, but later reformist economists like W. Jevons , impressed by the idea that social utility could be calculated based on the aggregate of individual interests, developed the theory in the direction of modern welfare economics. Reform-minded liberals such as J. Hobson and L. Constant preferred the prescriptions of natural law as the philosophical basis for government.

Other critics, like the Whig reformers James Mackintosh and T. As the 19 th century wore on assailants came forth from all points across the philosophical spectrum. XXIV, sect. Sundry religionists, including those of a philosophical bent like the classicist J.

Mayor, intuitionists like William Whewell, and idealists like Green, F. Bradley, Bernard Bosanquet and D. Ritchie combined to attack its atomism, crude materialism, narrowly construed theory of motivation, and lack of appreciation of the spiritual dimension of the human condition. Like J. Mill, the Pragmatists also dismissed the idea that any single form of the summum bonum could account for the many goods that people seek James , — There have been many critics of Bentham since.

Schofield provides an overview of some new directions in Bentham studies, to which may be added essays on the global Bentham Armitage ; Zhai and Palmer and essays on Bentham and the arts Julius, Quinn and Schofield Many of these commentaries have been inspired by the publication of the authoritative volumes in The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham that began appearing in to replace the poorly edited and incomplete Bowring edition — At the time of writing, 34 of the projected 80 volumes have been published.

As new volumes appear the topics of discussion and debate will continue to increase, burnishing the reputation of a philosopher whose ideas remain relevant in a great number of areas of interest to moralists, psychologists, economists, historians, legal and political philosophers. Michael Quinn and David Lieberman, generous and wise colleagues, gave careful attention to an earlier draft of this article and I am greatly indebted to them for the important improvements they recommended.

Life and Writings 2. Philosophical Foundations 3. Pains and Pleasures 3. Later Improvements 4. Subordinate Ends, Principles and Maxims 6. Civil Law and Political Economy 7. Penal Law and Punishment 8. Panopticon 9. Administration, Government, Constitutional Law 9. Influence Pains and Pleasures At the beginning of IPML Bentham offered the famous declamation that underscores the primacy of pains and pleasures in utilitarian theory: Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.

It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. The art proposes to itself an end to be attained, defines the end, and hands it over to the science. The science receives it, considers it as a phenomenon or effect to be studied, and having investigated its causes and conditions, sends it back to art with a theorem of the combinations of circumstances by which it could be produced. Art then examines these combinations of circumstances, and according as any of them are or are not in human power, pronounces the end attainable or not.

The only one of the premises, therefore, which Art supplies, is the original major premise, which asserts that the attainment of the given end is desirable. Science then lends to Art the proposition obtained by a series of inductions or of deductions that the performance of certain actions will attain the end.

From these premises Art concludes that the performance of these actions is desirable, and finding it also practicable, converts the theorem into a rule or precept. As often as the words arts and sciences are pronounced, a natural, and, it is believed, a very general, not to say universal, supposition is—that, in the first place, arts and sciences taken together, are different and distinguishable from whatever is neither art nor science; in the next place, that art and science are no less clearly different and distinguishable from each other.

The plain truth of the matter seems to be this,--between the field of art and science, and the remainder of the field of thought and action, there exists not any assignable difference; correspondent to these denominations, what there exists in the case, is a difference in the state of the mind of those by whom the part in question, of that field, is cultivated; where the nature of the case requires an operation to be performed, and of that operation the performance is regarded as requiring study , i.

In so far as, whether with or without, a view to further action, so it is that, in the receipt and collection of the ideas belonging to the subject, perceptible labour is employed, then it is that the word science is employed, and such portion, whatever it be, of the field of thought and action to which the labour is applied, is considered as a portion of the field of science.

In so far as a determinate object, in the character of an end , being in view, operation in the particular direction, is recurred to for the attainment of that end,--that portion, be it what it may, of the field of thought and action to which the labour is applied, is considered as part and parcel of the field of art.

Art is about effecting something, and science tells art how to effect it. Art sets ends, and gets its means from science. At the same time, this conception of science as, shall we say, practical science is very important for Mill. Thus, for example, the policy-maker aims to enhance national wealth, and learns maxims for how to do so from the science of political economy.

We are on the terrain of art-and-science, he seems to say, any time that we are thinking or doing anything where our thinking or doing is disciplined or could be disciplined by what is needed to do something—more science when we are studying and more art when we are doing, but remember, studying and thinking are doing too. Art and science, as Mary Mack and others have argued, are always art-and-science. The science of society would have attained a very high point of perfection, if it enabled us, in any given condition of social affairs [ There is nothing chimerical in the hope that general laws, sufficient to enable us to answer these various questions [ Such is the object of the Social Science.

One of the most prominently placed of such passages is in the Preface to An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Bentham was a trenchant reformer from beginning to end, but his reforming efforts involved constructing legal and institutional economies that would more felicitously arrange existing expectations—that would take people as they were and better harmonize their interests. But there is also no comprehensive science of the social that could ever yield a single report on the various causes and effects relevant to national happiness.

In reading Bentham in the way that he does, Mill helps to inaugurate a particular standpoint, one that is characteristic of the nineteenth- and twentieth- and twenty-first- century moral sciences. These have become policy sciences. In this biopolitical search for foundations scientific would-be governors veer from necessity to utopia and back again in a manner foreign to Bentham, who remains by comparison an eighteenth-century institutional thinker.

The continuing argument between those who see policy as adapting to a social substrate and those who see policy as molding it simply reinforces the technopolitical frame. Legislation is making laws. We do not talk of the science of making anything. Even the science of government would be an objectionable expression, were it not that government is often loosely taken to signify, not the act of governing, but the state or condition of being governed , or of living under a government.

A preferable expression would be, the science of political society ; a principal branch of the more extensive science of society [ And in the Evidence Bentham continually points to interest and away from character, showing the enormous flexibility of the language of interest which Mill, in the Logic , acknowledges in Bentham himself in a doggedly relational approach to, for example, the reliability of testimony.

I will briefly sketch these one at a time, and some of them will resonate with familiar criticisms of Mill. This purpose of course animated his several and salutary public works, and is explicit in the founding documents of new organizations he supported such as the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science.

But Mill takes it for granted, as do we, that there is a something there to improve, with natural tendencies of its own. This is, in part, merely a matter of emphasis, but it is an important one. Although both Bentham and Mill can be described as methodological individualists, the issue here is not so much methodological individualism versus holism as it is whether we trace worrisome effects to the condition of individual or group character or to the condition of relations.

Bentham also has faith in the potential reach of science, but every science for Bentham has its corresponding art, and there are many arts and sciences or disciplines, and their hierarchy is not clear. It is however conceivable that a certain epistemological priority claim could be made for the discipline of judicial evidence, which needs to have an understanding of the other disciplines sufficient to know something about their standards of evidence.

Say for shortness,--subservient to the maximum of happiness , is the maximum of disciplines. I have already indicated that Mill is right to think of Bentham as a bad moral philosopher, on his and our understanding of the project of moral philosophy. His early critique takes Bentham to task for refusing to extend the view of an action to the character underlying it:.

Now, the great fault I have to find with Mr. Bentham as a moral philosopher [ When the moralist thus overlooks the relation of an act to a certain state of mind as its cause, and its connexion through that common cause with large classes and groups of actions apparently very little resembling itself, his estimation even of the consequences of the very act itself, is rendered imperfect.

For it may be affirmed with few exceptions, that any act whatever has a tendency to fix and perpetuate the state or character of mind in which itself has originated. And if that important element in the moral relations of the action be not taken into account by the moralist as a cause, neither probably will it be taken into account as a consequence. He carried this so far, that there were certain phrases, which, being expressive of what he considered to be this groundless liking or aversion, he could not bear to hear pronounced in his presence.

Among these phrases were those of good and bad taste. Consider Bentham from an early manuscript fragment on bestiality:. Bentham has famously been identified as a disciplinary theorist, but this identification is incorrect, except in so far as he develops technologies of discipline for use in specific institutional contexts. He is instead a theorist of government and, despite his technopolitical tendencies, his government promotes a utilitarian economy of arrangement without yielding to specific disciplinary representations of that arrangement.

Mill himself would have abhorred many of the arts of our rule of experts, especially its neoliberal administration informed by anemic political economy, and supplemented by busybody arts and sciences of self-help. My thanks go to co-panelists and audiences in these sessions for their responses. Thanks also to the Special Collections Library of University College London and its staff for access to the Bentham Collection, and to the Bentham Project and its staff for their hospitality and support.

Robson, ed. Collini et al. But I am less concerned here with the erosion of politics than I am by its representation as a particular techno-political art-and-science of government; and my main point here is to stress how this representation contributes to a misreading of predecessors, especially Bentham. This perspective is sufficiently powerful to frame even Collini et al.

Excited too academic ghostwriters sites online topic remarkable

PART I. BOOK I. BOOK V. See Table II. Of Places. Of Times. Of Services. Of Obligations. Of Rights. Of Collative and Ablative Events. Of Contracts. Of the Domestic and Civil States. Of Persons capable of Acquiring and of Contracting. Jeremy Bentham to the honest and afflicted among Equity Suitors. The following Note respecting this Work was given by Bentham to Dr. Research Methodology 4. Chapter 1: Utility of Punishment 6. Chapter 2: Retributive Justice And Legitimacy Conclusion Bibliography Introduction Punishment entails the intentional infliction of pain or some type of deprivation in an institutionalized form that individuals would generally prefer to avoid.

This requires justification to be morally acceptable. Attempts to provide justification for infliction of punishment are made by various punishment theories. Punishment theories generally can be separated into a handful of philosophical camps—consequentialist theories, non-consequentialist theories, and mixed or hybrid theories that contain both consequentialist and non-consequentialist elements. What distinguishes these theories is their focus and goals: Consequentialist theories are forward-looking, concerned with the future consequences of punishment; non-consequentialist theories are backward-looking, interested solely in past acts and mental states; and mixed theories are both forward- and backward-looking, with each hybrid placing a different emphasis on culpable past conduct versus future consequences.

The present paper will briefly examine the two dominant consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories of Utilitarianism ENG Information Literacy Assessment [Type the author name] This paper will discuss utilitarianism, its origins and how we can apply it to our lives today. I will show what would happen if everyone adopted this code of ethics and reasoning, and why I chose it.

Utilitarianism What is Utilitarianism? According to our textbooks, utilitarianism is the ethical system which believes that which is ethical is what will bring the greatest good or happiness to the greatest number of people Turner, In a direct quote from the American Heritage Dictionary, utilitarianism is the ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good Driver, A well-known dialogue by If he failed to do so, the commander and his troops will execute all the rebels, sack their village for anything of value, and leave Jim stranded in the rainforest with no supplies, resulting in almost certain death.

Through analyzing the theory of ethical relativism, we were able to decide that Jim should in fact kill the rebel leader, but what if we analyze another ethical theory? Will we come up with the same answer as we did before? Using a new theory, utilitarianism, or, the idea that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority, we can further analyze why Jim should still kill the rebel leader and why it is a better answer than if we were to use relativism.

The theory of utilitarianism is fairly straightforward to understand, but we must define it in great detail in order to analyze why Jim Logic Main article: Logic Logic is the study of the principles of correct reasoning. Arguments use either deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is when, given certain statements called premises , other statements called conclusions are unavoidably implied. A common convention for a deductive argument is the syllogism. An argument is termed valid if its conclusion does indeed follow from its premises, whether the premises are true or not, while an argument is sound if its conclusion follows from premises that are true.

Propositional logic uses premises that are propositions, which are declarations that are either true or false, while predicate logic uses more complex premises called formulae that contain variables. These can be assigned values or can be quantified as to when they apply with the universal quantifier always apply or the existential quantifier applies at least once. Inductive reasoning makes conclusions or generalizations based on probabilistic reasoning. Fields in logic include mathematical logic formal symbolic logic and philosophical logic.

Metaphysics Main article: Metaphysics Metaphysics is the study of the most general features of reality, such as existence, time, the Again, given the weather conditions, this could be viewed as negligent. Case Research Journal, H.

Neither action alone caused the accident, but compounding those with the fog and the conscience decision of CSX to not install the sensors that detect bridge damage made them unethical decisions. For many years, Brazilian women from African decent in particular have been regarded as the backbone of the church. Many congregations of churches are predominantly women, while spiritual leaders of many churches are nearly all male.

Brazilian women have experienced a system of oppression, racism, and sexism, yet have remained supportive of their male counterparts. The significant contribution Brazilian women have made to the development of the Brazilian church often goes unnoticed.

Although Brazilian women were not able to achieve ordination within the religious structure, their leadership and ability to persuade spiritual leaders made them an influential voice in the Brazilian church. This research paper will examine the roles of Brazilian women in the Brazilian Church in the progressive era with a particular interest in the early nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. During the progressive era, Brazilian women re-shaped the Brazilian church to a public political forum where Brazilians could engage in discourse and educate others, setting the stage for organized political movement.

Ultimately, Brazilian women contradict their efforts to uplift the race by utilizing the Brazilian church as In this paper, I would like to specifically talk about how beauty ideals that have been set up for women play its role in creating an unequal power relation between men and women. Factory farms are used to produce everyday products like bacon, pork, steak, chicken nuggets, milk, cheese, etc. The cost of buying a burger at a local McDonalds is around one to three dollars.

This could cause a brief stage of net losses for food manufacturing companies. I think it is mandatory to incur these extra expenses for the sake of humanity and animal rights. A small loss in profits is far less important than the pain and suffering these animals have to deal with on a daily basis. In this research paper I will discuss the ethical dilemmas and the conditions of the factory farms, as well as solutions to the problem of animals not having the proper rights.

PUNCTUATE ESSAY TITLE

Question essay about graduation opinion you

Of an Examination into the merits of a Critique on Blackstone's Commentaries, lately published under the Title of a Fragment on Government. By John Lind, Esq. PART I. BOOK I. BOOK V. See Table II. Of Places. Of Times. Of Services. Of Obligations. Of Rights. Of Collative and Ablative Events.

Of Contracts. Of the Domestic and Civil States. Of Persons capable of Acquiring and of Contracting. Introduction 3. Research Methodology 4. Chapter 1: Utility of Punishment 6. Chapter 2: Retributive Justice And Legitimacy Conclusion Bibliography Introduction Punishment entails the intentional infliction of pain or some type of deprivation in an institutionalized form that individuals would generally prefer to avoid. This requires justification to be morally acceptable.

Attempts to provide justification for infliction of punishment are made by various punishment theories. Punishment theories generally can be separated into a handful of philosophical camps—consequentialist theories, non-consequentialist theories, and mixed or hybrid theories that contain both consequentialist and non-consequentialist elements. What distinguishes these theories is their focus and goals: Consequentialist theories are forward-looking, concerned with the future consequences of punishment; non-consequentialist theories are backward-looking, interested solely in past acts and mental states; and mixed theories are both forward- and backward-looking, with each hybrid placing a different emphasis on culpable past conduct versus future consequences.

The present paper will briefly examine the two dominant consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories of Utilitarianism ENG Information Literacy Assessment [Type the author name] This paper will discuss utilitarianism, its origins and how we can apply it to our lives today. I will show what would happen if everyone adopted this code of ethics and reasoning, and why I chose it. Utilitarianism What is Utilitarianism? According to our textbooks, utilitarianism is the ethical system which believes that which is ethical is what will bring the greatest good or happiness to the greatest number of people Turner, In a direct quote from the American Heritage Dictionary, utilitarianism is the ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences.

On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good Driver, A well-known dialogue by If he failed to do so, the commander and his troops will execute all the rebels, sack their village for anything of value, and leave Jim stranded in the rainforest with no supplies, resulting in almost certain death. Through analyzing the theory of ethical relativism, we were able to decide that Jim should in fact kill the rebel leader, but what if we analyze another ethical theory?

Will we come up with the same answer as we did before? Using a new theory, utilitarianism, or, the idea that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority, we can further analyze why Jim should still kill the rebel leader and why it is a better answer than if we were to use relativism. The theory of utilitarianism is fairly straightforward to understand, but we must define it in great detail in order to analyze why Jim Logic Main article: Logic Logic is the study of the principles of correct reasoning.

Arguments use either deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is when, given certain statements called premises , other statements called conclusions are unavoidably implied. A common convention for a deductive argument is the syllogism. An argument is termed valid if its conclusion does indeed follow from its premises, whether the premises are true or not, while an argument is sound if its conclusion follows from premises that are true.

Propositional logic uses premises that are propositions, which are declarations that are either true or false, while predicate logic uses more complex premises called formulae that contain variables. These can be assigned values or can be quantified as to when they apply with the universal quantifier always apply or the existential quantifier applies at least once.

Inductive reasoning makes conclusions or generalizations based on probabilistic reasoning. Fields in logic include mathematical logic formal symbolic logic and philosophical logic. Metaphysics Main article: Metaphysics Metaphysics is the study of the most general features of reality, such as existence, time, the Again, given the weather conditions, this could be viewed as negligent.

Case Research Journal, H. Neither action alone caused the accident, but compounding those with the fog and the conscience decision of CSX to not install the sensors that detect bridge damage made them unethical decisions. For many years, Brazilian women from African decent in particular have been regarded as the backbone of the church.

Many congregations of churches are predominantly women, while spiritual leaders of many churches are nearly all male. Brazilian women have experienced a system of oppression, racism, and sexism, yet have remained supportive of their male counterparts. The significant contribution Brazilian women have made to the development of the Brazilian church often goes unnoticed. Although Brazilian women were not able to achieve ordination within the religious structure, their leadership and ability to persuade spiritual leaders made them an influential voice in the Brazilian church.

This research paper will examine the roles of Brazilian women in the Brazilian Church in the progressive era with a particular interest in the early nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. During the progressive era, Brazilian women re-shaped the Brazilian church to a public political forum where Brazilians could engage in discourse and educate others, setting the stage for organized political movement.

Ultimately, Brazilian women contradict their efforts to uplift the race by utilizing the Brazilian church as In this paper, I would like to specifically talk about how beauty ideals that have been set up for women play its role in creating an unequal power relation between men and women.

Factory farms are used to produce everyday products like bacon, pork, steak, chicken nuggets, milk, cheese, etc. The cost of buying a burger at a local McDonalds is around one to three dollars. This could cause a brief stage of net losses for food manufacturing companies. I think it is mandatory to incur these extra expenses for the sake of humanity and animal rights. A small loss in profits is far less important than the pain and suffering these animals have to deal with on a daily basis.

MIDDLE CHILDHOOD OBSERVATION ESSAY

All are dismissed on the grounds that they are merely empty phrases that express nothing beyond the sentiment of the person who advocates them. Not representing verifiable reality, such phrases could not be considered useful. At the beginning of IPML Bentham offered the famous declamation that underscores the primacy of pains and pleasures in utilitarian theory:. There are two forms of hedonism expressed in this seminal passage: 1 psychological hedonism, which states that all motives of action are grounded in the apprehension of pain or the desire for pleasure; and 2 ethical hedonism, which holds that pleasure is the only good and actions are right in so far as they tend to produce pleasure or avoid pain.

As such, pain and pleasure are the final cause of individual action and the efficient cause and means to individual happiness. Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer? But how is the legislator to influence individual actions and gain conformity to his decisions? In effect, there is no such thing as a good or bad motive. When deciding whether to act or which act to undertake, a person must calculate as best as he can the pains and pleasures that may reasonably be expected to accrue to the persons including himself affected by the acts under consideration.

A similar calculation should guide the legislator in formulating laws. However, Bentham recognised that it was not normally feasible for an individual to engage in such a calculation as a preliminary to undertaking every act. For this reason he spoke of the general tendencies of actions to enhance happiness suggested by past experience as a sufficient guide in most situations. To this end he developed rules to guide the lawmaker in the construction of a penal code, including the elements involved in the calculation of the mischief caused by offences and the appropriate punishments.

In general he followed Adam Smith in believing the individual to be the best judge of his or her own interests, but the simplicity of this proposition is deceptive see Engelmann This involves the individual in imagining what will occur if she were to act in a certain manner.

For Bentham, the most important elements of the external environment in which a person imagines outcomes are the penalties and rewards laid down by law and those deriving from other educative and moral institutional arrangements and practices, including the sanction exercised by public opinion.

In this sense, law and other agencies may be used to construct interests by providing individuals with the motives to pursue courses of action beneficial to the community. It is the individual who then must correctly perceive where her interests lie; she must imagine the expected outcomes the legislator has determined.

Second, Bentham recognised that explaining action in terms of interest is potentially circular. If we mean, acting to pursue our interest in the widest sense, then the statement is tautological b, 93n. Bentham recognised the possibility of altruistic actions, and frequently alluded to his own philanthropy when recommending schemes to further the public good.

However, if not all action is motivated by self-interest in the narrow or strict meaning of the term, then how far can the self-preference principle be considered a reliable guide for the legislator in constructing motives? While it is not true that everyone always acts in his or her self-interest, it is best that the legislator design institutions and law as if this were in fact true. Self-interested acts are the norm; altruism is the exception. Third, although individuals may in general be the best judges of their own interests, they may not always judge wisely.

But if people incorrectly perceive their interests, then the legislator may be misled in constructing the appropriate motivation. This means that assessing the value of the constituent elements of interest pains and pleasures is a tricky business for the legislator; he must accurately observe the ways people behave, deduce the motives behind their actions, and encompass this knowledge in the sanctions of law.

The aim is to tell individuals what they should not do, but also to provide them with motives pains and pleasures in prospect sufficient to divert their desires into channels best designed to serve the public interest. In this way government could educate its citizens to make more effective choices, or at least guide them into more appropriate paths to achieve their real interests —43, I, Bentham recognised that neither the individual nor the legislator could strictly follow the process he described.

As is well known, while adhering to the basic Benthamic analysis of motives, in Utilitarianism J. This tended to undermine the aggregative dimension of the theory laid down by Bentham. Bentham occasionally suggested that pains and pleasures might be evaluated in relation to income or wealth, but he was aware of the limitations of this approach.

It is in the nature of the case that the amount of increase in happiness will not be as great as the increase in wealth; the addition of equal increments of money will eventually bring successively less of an increase in happiness. One of its practical consequences for a utilitarian such as Bentham is that, where choices present themselves between giving an additional increment to a rich man or to a poor man, more happiness will result from giving it to the poorer of the two.

Also, the analysis underscores why money cannot be a direct measure of utility, since the utility represented by a particular sum of money will vary depending on the relative wealth of the person who receives it. Moreover, it is evident that diminishing marginal utility is also a feature of the additional increments of pleasure a person may experience beyond a certain point; equal increments of pleasure will not necessarily add to the stockpile of happiness if a person has reached a saturation point.

For Bentham, the unhappiness created by the loss of something will usually have a greater impact on a person than the happiness brought about by its gain to someone else —43, I, —7. Of course, if the loser is a wealthy person and the gainer a poor man, this will not hold. But in the normal run of things, this is why Bentham gave a higher priority to the protection of property by law and why he held that the alleviation of suffering demands more immediate attention than plans to produce wealth —54, III, , Raising public funds through taxation for vital services would be justified by the principle, as would emergency expropriation of property in times of war or famine, usually with compensation paid to the property owner.

For Bentham, the significance of this principle as a practical guide could hardly be overstated. He came to see that such a principle could justify inordinate sacrifices by a minority, however that minority might be composed, in the interest of enhancing the happiness of a majority. He considered this a false conclusion, but one that needed to be addressed. The less the numerical difference between the minority and majority, the more obvious the deficiency in aggregate happiness will be a, Logically, then, the closer we approximate the happiness of all the members of the community, the greater the aggregate of happiness.

The universal interest relates to interests that are shared by everyone, and only when it is impossible for government to contrive policies to achieve this end is a distribution of happiness less than universal or less than equal justified b, However, the number of decisions made by governments that are genuinely of universal reach are relatively few and may be limited to national defence and the framework of individual rights securities.

Beyond that, redistributive policies invariably involve unequal sacrifices and benefits. This means that the legislator must employ a utilitarian calculation in which the pain experienced by the few is reduced to the minimum necessary to produce benefits for the many; only on this basis may pleasures be summed and pains subtracted in order to produce the rationale to justify the best policy.

Related to this conception of the universal interest is the egalitarian commitment that in arriving at the appropriate law or policy the interests of each and all must count, and count equally , I, This does not mean that optimal utility is not the goal, but simply stresses that optimal utility will be more likely achieved where there is an approximate equality in the distribution of the basic requirements of happiness Postema Green forward, argue that calculations of total utility fail to respect the distinctiveness of persons and thereby place their interests at perpetual risk Rawls , 22—27; Nozick , 28—35; see the discussions in Ten , 13—37; Rosen , Chs.

If deterrence can be achieved by punishing an innocent bystander when the real culprit cannot be caught or brought to justice, then why should the bystander not be punished? Because public utility would be maximised by making an example of an innocent bystander just as much as by punishing the person who was actually guilty of the offence but who has not been apprehended, it seems the utilitarian ought to support the punishment.

But this is not only intuitively wrong, it is also wrong because there is a real danger that violations of security would lead to other such violations, with no principled basis to cease inflicting them. Basic securities must be afforded to each and every member of the community, and violations of these vital interests are not justified, whether they be perpetrated by other individuals or government, since they contravene the distributive elements of utilitarian theory.

From early on in his utilitarian theorizing, Bentham understood that the achievement of utilitarian objectives in practice required the translation of the utility principle into elements amenable to implementation in ways that the philosophically abstract principle itself could not be. Concrete manifestations of happiness, for example, could be found in personal security and reduced crime rates, enhanced health and declining death rates, broader opportunities for education, the reduction of diseases caused by sewage pollution, and so on.

This deficiency did not, however, prevent him from developing the theoretical apparatus to direct the formulation of such laws. This was more than the Humean observation that utility is embedded in customary rules that have evolved over time. Where the jurist detects deficiencies, new rules and precepts must be developed that demonstrably accord with the utility principle. The greatest happiness principle sets the over-arching objective and is the critical standard against which existing practices are to be judged.

As such, it stands ever ready to be summoned forth whenever new guidelines are needed, subordinate ends conflict, or existing laws require amendment, refinement, or further elaboration. However, in practice it is the secondary elements of the theory that do the work of producing beneficial outcomes. In this way, they give practical concreteness to the philosophically abstract end of the greatest happiness. The subordinate ends of civil law are security, subsistence, abundance, and equality, in this order of priority.

This is entirely consistent with the view that, properly understood, the utility principle entails a presumption in favour of an equal distribution, unless there is compelling empirical evidence that utility would not be served by such a policy. However, he refused to countenance the idea that policies to redistribute wealth at the cost of security would be beneficial either to social prosperity or individual wellbeing.

Bentham believed that facilitating individuals in the pursuit of their interests in a free market is what government should do, because this is the proven best way to maximise the public good. Where laissez-faire does not produce the best result, however, the legislator must act in other direct and indirect ways to produce the optimal outcome. But radical schemes for property re-distribution are ruled out; the axiomatic requirement that each be treated equally, that the happiness of each be counted, justified policies to equalize the distribution of goods only where this could be achieved without disappointing legitimate expectations.

Just as the primary purpose of civil law is economic security and national prosperity, so it draws powerful support from the protection afforded persons, property and expectations by the threat of punishment —43, III, To this end, utilitarian penal law is framed in terms of the principal objective of deterrence, but it also embraces the secondary ends of disablement, moral reformation, and compensation see Crimmins b.

The effectiveness of the theory in practice depends on two additional features: offences must be classified solely on the basis of the harm perpetrated, and there must be an appropriate proportion between crimes and punishments.

It is because of its failure to satisfy the first feature that Bentham rejected the prevailing criminalization of consensual sexual acts, and developed the first systematic defence of sexual liberty in the English language. In settling the required proportions of punishment, Bentham recognised he had burdened the legislator with a vastly complex task—the calculation of the correct quantity and type of pain needed to achieve the desired ends, in particular the objective of deterrence.

Bentham first examined the utility of the death penalty in the s when he delineated the principles of penal law —43, I, —50; see also , Ch. In sum, it is a special application of his utilitarian theory of punishment. The framework of analysis is presented as an objective, neutral exercise, by which the benefits and costs of the death penalty in cases of murder are assessed in comparison with life imprisonment with hard labour.

All things considered, Bentham believed the weight of the calculation worked against the death penalty on the grounds of deterrence, the fact that it is inequable in its application, falling mainly on the shoulders of the poor, and because it is a form of punishment that is irremissible in the face of judicial error. By , however, he abandoned the exceptions and argued that no offence warranted capital punishment UC cvii.

Subordinate ends are also evident in the design and management of the panopticon prison: security and economy are foremost, but tempered by humanity and accountability. This view of the panopticon has opened up some interesting lines of discourse on the encroaching methods of control and surveillance in contemporary liberal societies Brunon-Ernst The end of economy determined that the panopticon prison should be a private self-sustaining operation not requiring financial assistance from the public purse.

Security determined that the community be protected from convicted criminals, and severity in punishment was to serve the ends of deterrence and reformation. But security also required that the inmate be protected from cruel treatment, and humanity determined that prisoners should be deprived only of liberty not health or life. Prisoners were to be kept clean and their labour made productive and profitable, including the development of skills that might be useful to them when released.

In support of these objectives, Bentham invoked several devices to effect transparency and accountability in prison government. And, just as the panopticon was to be monitored by the publication of regular reports, so reports of government activity were required to keep the democratic polity informed and facilitate the accountability of public officials. When Bentham turned his thoughts to constitutional law in earnest in the s, partly inspired by constitution-making in parts of southern Europe, it was with the conviction that all states in which the institutions of representative democracy already existed or in which they could be introduced were fertile soil for the utilitarian pannomion.

The administrative, electoral and legislative details of this project occupied much of the last decade of his life, with its core ideas discussed in the pages of a variety of works in addition to the Code , such as Securities Against Misrule , First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code , and Official Aptitude Maximized; Expense Minimized.

The subsidiary principles of accountability, efficiency, and economy underpinned the institutional design and procedural operations elaborated in these writings. It is imperative, therefore, to devise mechanisms that will ensure that only by acting in the public interest could they promote their own interests. Given the extensive powers Bentham envisaged the thirteen ministries of the reformed government would possess—far more power in the areas of public health, education, and relief of the poor and indigent than existed at the time—further safeguards would be required.

Intellectual and active aptitude were to be tested through an examination process, though this would come to naught if the appointed official did not possess the appropriate moral aptitude —43, IX, Other devices designed to ensure, encourage, and test the required aptitude of public officials include: 1 the precise definition of responsibilities attached to each office, against which the actions of officials could be judged by either a superordinate official or the public; 2 the principle of subordination, according to which every official was subordinate to another who could punish him for inefficiency in the performance of his tasks; 3 complete exposure to legal prosecution of all officials for wrong-doing; 4 the elimination of the practice of handing out unwarranted titles of honour to party supporters and other favourites; 5 complete publicity of government business and the elimination of secrecy; and 6 freedom of the press, speech and association see Rosen , Ch.

In the first sense of the term it is seemingly impossible for there to be a law that deliberately functions contrary to the will of the legislature. However, Bentham also held that all political authority, no matter what form it takes, is necessarily limited by its capacity to compel obedience from the people.

And in Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence he explained that this implies two volitions, both of which are necessary components of a complete theory of sovereignty: on the one hand, the enactments of a legislature and, on the other, the will of the people to obey those enactments. The POT would scrutinize the actions of elected representatives, public and judicial officials, prosecuting charges where they are found remiss in their responsibilities, censoring misrule and imposing penalties when applicable.

In these terms, the POT would be the leading security against the misuse and abuse of power , Vital to the functioning of the POT is the dissemination of information. In the first instance this would require the establishment of a public archive of government actions and activities containing records of law, policy, legislative debate, and statistics, which the government would be constitutionally required to make available to the public by a freedom of information provision in the constitutional code to ensure transparency.

Secondly, it would require an unshackled press to ensure widespread publicity and the freedom to criticize unimpeded by censorship or gagging orders. Here Bentham drew upon his essay On the Liberty of the Press, and Public Discussion to point out the dangers of laws designed to limit these liberties. Bentham did not consider that the effectiveness of the POT as a check on misrule could be undermined by secret government methods to limit the flow of information, nor did it occur to him that a press dominated by the views of one class could subvert the veracity of the information it disseminated.

He pinned his faith on transparency and publicity Postema , Ideally, the public would be adequately informed, and the POT would be constituted by those among the public who were both knowledgeable and concerned about the issues before it. Its judgements could change as new evidence came to light or as new arguments were enunciated, and it could be fragmented or unified in its view in proportion to the variety of individual opinions expressed.

During the revolutionary years in France, Dumont fed his ideas into the debates over judicial, legal, penal and legislative reform, and if his proposals had little impact on the social and political improvements undertaken they yet contributed to the direction of French liberalism Champs It was from this platform that Bentham was able to promote himself as a potential codifier of the laws in countries near and far. Despite the herculean efforts of Dumont, however, his ideas received a mixed reception in France see Champs , Ch.

On the other hand, self-interest and the utility principle was rejected by Germaine de Stael as an impoverished grounding for moral duty, and rejected by other reformers such as Benjamin Constant who grounded their liberalism on natural rights. Earlier, in , Bentham had counselled the French National Convention to divest itself of its colonies on the grounds of their disutility though the text Emancipate Your Colonies!

Santander, who was more inclined to resist the influence of the Catholic Church, restored it to the curriculum of the universities when he became President of the newly constituted state of Colombia in A year later he published in Greek A General Theory of Administrative Systems and especially of the Parliamentary One, Accompanied by a Short Treatise on Justices of the Peace and Juries in England , containing a defense of representative government and advocating a judicial system based on utilitarian principles, replete with references to Bentham Peonidis David Hoffman first introduced utilitarian ideas into legal education in America at the University of Maryland in the early s.

The reviews paid particular attention to the systematic presentation of the theory of civil law, which also impressed itself on the teaching of law in the newly independent states of South America, where property rights were a matter of considerable importance in the aftermath of the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese empires.

Thomas Cooper, who left England for the United States in with Joseph Priestley, from whom he initially derived his utilitarianism, was a confirmed Benthamite by the s and the intended recipient of writings Bentham entrusted to John Quincy Adams. Thereafter Cooper employed utilitarian principles in his writings on law and political economy, most notably in Lectures on the Elements of Political Economy Edward Livingston, the famous author of codes of law for Louisiana, corresponded with Bentham, who sent him books for his research.

Inspired by Bentham, Vale was in favour of humane penal laws that proportioned penalties to the objective of deterrence and an advocate of state intervention to alter the social circumstances that fostered crime. Mill, and Henry Sidgwick. Throughout the following century his influence continued to be felt, particular in discussions of moral and legal philosophy and economic theory and practice. In he was hired to tutor J.

Mill in Roman law, began attending meetings of the Utilitarian Society established by the younger Mill in , and in was appointed to the Chair of Jurisprudence at the newly founded University of London, where he was the first in England to introduce utilitarian ideas into legal education.

Around this time, however, partly in response to the challenge of T. Though, like Bentham, an advocate of representative democracy based on universal suffrage, Mill also made several proposals to temper the potential excesses of unconstrained majoritarian institutions. However, he also developed the theory of diminishing marginal utility, furnishing the legislator with a conceptual tool by which to address the uneven distribution of social happiness.

The collectivist conclusions Bentham drew from this principle were modest in scope, but later reformist economists like W. Jevons , impressed by the idea that social utility could be calculated based on the aggregate of individual interests, developed the theory in the direction of modern welfare economics. Reform-minded liberals such as J. Hobson and L.

Constant preferred the prescriptions of natural law as the philosophical basis for government. Other critics, like the Whig reformers James Mackintosh and T. As the 19 th century wore on assailants came forth from all points across the philosophical spectrum. XXIV, sect. Sundry religionists, including those of a philosophical bent like the classicist J. Mayor, intuitionists like William Whewell, and idealists like Green, F.

Bradley, Bernard Bosanquet and D. Ritchie combined to attack its atomism, crude materialism, narrowly construed theory of motivation, and lack of appreciation of the spiritual dimension of the human condition. Like J. Mill, the Pragmatists also dismissed the idea that any single form of the summum bonum could account for the many goods that people seek James , — There have been many critics of Bentham since. Schofield provides an overview of some new directions in Bentham studies, to which may be added essays on the global Bentham Armitage ; Zhai and Palmer and essays on Bentham and the arts Julius, Quinn and Schofield Many of these commentaries have been inspired by the publication of the authoritative volumes in The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham that began appearing in to replace the poorly edited and incomplete Bowring edition — At the time of writing, 34 of the projected 80 volumes have been published.

As new volumes appear the topics of discussion and debate will continue to increase, burnishing the reputation of a philosopher whose ideas remain relevant in a great number of areas of interest to moralists, psychologists, economists, historians, legal and political philosophers. Michael Quinn and David Lieberman, generous and wise colleagues, gave careful attention to an earlier draft of this article and I am greatly indebted to them for the important improvements they recommended.

Life and Writings 2. Philosophical Foundations 3. Pains and Pleasures 3. Later Improvements 4. Subordinate Ends, Principles and Maxims 6. Civil Law and Political Economy 7. Penal Law and Punishment 8. Panopticon 9. Administration, Government, Constitutional Law 9. Influence Pains and Pleasures At the beginning of IPML Bentham offered the famous declamation that underscores the primacy of pains and pleasures in utilitarian theory: Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.

It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. Ironically, it is precisely moments of Benthamic liberalism and pluralism that are lost in the turn to social science, which elevates character and its education to center stage, 4 and which substitutes an imperial technopolitics for Radical vigilance.

The relation in which rules of art stand to doctrines of science may be thus characterized. The art proposes to itself an end to be attained, defines the end, and hands it over to the science. The science receives it, considers it as a phenomenon or effect to be studied, and having investigated its causes and conditions, sends it back to art with a theorem of the combinations of circumstances by which it could be produced. Art then examines these combinations of circumstances, and according as any of them are or are not in human power, pronounces the end attainable or not.

The only one of the premises, therefore, which Art supplies, is the original major premise, which asserts that the attainment of the given end is desirable. Science then lends to Art the proposition obtained by a series of inductions or of deductions that the performance of certain actions will attain the end. From these premises Art concludes that the performance of these actions is desirable, and finding it also practicable, converts the theorem into a rule or precept. As often as the words arts and sciences are pronounced, a natural, and, it is believed, a very general, not to say universal, supposition is—that, in the first place, arts and sciences taken together, are different and distinguishable from whatever is neither art nor science; in the next place, that art and science are no less clearly different and distinguishable from each other.

The plain truth of the matter seems to be this,--between the field of art and science, and the remainder of the field of thought and action, there exists not any assignable difference; correspondent to these denominations, what there exists in the case, is a difference in the state of the mind of those by whom the part in question, of that field, is cultivated; where the nature of the case requires an operation to be performed, and of that operation the performance is regarded as requiring study , i.

In so far as, whether with or without, a view to further action, so it is that, in the receipt and collection of the ideas belonging to the subject, perceptible labour is employed, then it is that the word science is employed, and such portion, whatever it be, of the field of thought and action to which the labour is applied, is considered as a portion of the field of science.

In so far as a determinate object, in the character of an end , being in view, operation in the particular direction, is recurred to for the attainment of that end,--that portion, be it what it may, of the field of thought and action to which the labour is applied, is considered as part and parcel of the field of art. Art is about effecting something, and science tells art how to effect it. Art sets ends, and gets its means from science. At the same time, this conception of science as, shall we say, practical science is very important for Mill.

Thus, for example, the policy-maker aims to enhance national wealth, and learns maxims for how to do so from the science of political economy. We are on the terrain of art-and-science, he seems to say, any time that we are thinking or doing anything where our thinking or doing is disciplined or could be disciplined by what is needed to do something—more science when we are studying and more art when we are doing, but remember, studying and thinking are doing too. Art and science, as Mary Mack and others have argued, are always art-and-science.

The science of society would have attained a very high point of perfection, if it enabled us, in any given condition of social affairs [ There is nothing chimerical in the hope that general laws, sufficient to enable us to answer these various questions [ Such is the object of the Social Science.

One of the most prominently placed of such passages is in the Preface to An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Bentham was a trenchant reformer from beginning to end, but his reforming efforts involved constructing legal and institutional economies that would more felicitously arrange existing expectations—that would take people as they were and better harmonize their interests. But there is also no comprehensive science of the social that could ever yield a single report on the various causes and effects relevant to national happiness.

In reading Bentham in the way that he does, Mill helps to inaugurate a particular standpoint, one that is characteristic of the nineteenth- and twentieth- and twenty-first- century moral sciences. These have become policy sciences. In this biopolitical search for foundations scientific would-be governors veer from necessity to utopia and back again in a manner foreign to Bentham, who remains by comparison an eighteenth-century institutional thinker. The continuing argument between those who see policy as adapting to a social substrate and those who see policy as molding it simply reinforces the technopolitical frame.

Legislation is making laws. We do not talk of the science of making anything. Even the science of government would be an objectionable expression, were it not that government is often loosely taken to signify, not the act of governing, but the state or condition of being governed , or of living under a government.

A preferable expression would be, the science of political society ; a principal branch of the more extensive science of society [ And in the Evidence Bentham continually points to interest and away from character, showing the enormous flexibility of the language of interest which Mill, in the Logic , acknowledges in Bentham himself in a doggedly relational approach to, for example, the reliability of testimony.

I will briefly sketch these one at a time, and some of them will resonate with familiar criticisms of Mill. This purpose of course animated his several and salutary public works, and is explicit in the founding documents of new organizations he supported such as the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science. But Mill takes it for granted, as do we, that there is a something there to improve, with natural tendencies of its own.

This is, in part, merely a matter of emphasis, but it is an important one. Although both Bentham and Mill can be described as methodological individualists, the issue here is not so much methodological individualism versus holism as it is whether we trace worrisome effects to the condition of individual or group character or to the condition of relations. Bentham also has faith in the potential reach of science, but every science for Bentham has its corresponding art, and there are many arts and sciences or disciplines, and their hierarchy is not clear.

It is however conceivable that a certain epistemological priority claim could be made for the discipline of judicial evidence, which needs to have an understanding of the other disciplines sufficient to know something about their standards of evidence. Say for shortness,--subservient to the maximum of happiness , is the maximum of disciplines.

I have already indicated that Mill is right to think of Bentham as a bad moral philosopher, on his and our understanding of the project of moral philosophy. His early critique takes Bentham to task for refusing to extend the view of an action to the character underlying it:. Now, the great fault I have to find with Mr. Bentham as a moral philosopher [ When the moralist thus overlooks the relation of an act to a certain state of mind as its cause, and its connexion through that common cause with large classes and groups of actions apparently very little resembling itself, his estimation even of the consequences of the very act itself, is rendered imperfect.

For it may be affirmed with few exceptions, that any act whatever has a tendency to fix and perpetuate the state or character of mind in which itself has originated. And if that important element in the moral relations of the action be not taken into account by the moralist as a cause, neither probably will it be taken into account as a consequence.

He carried this so far, that there were certain phrases, which, being expressive of what he considered to be this groundless liking or aversion, he could not bear to hear pronounced in his presence. Among these phrases were those of good and bad taste. Consider Bentham from an early manuscript fragment on bestiality:. Bentham has famously been identified as a disciplinary theorist, but this identification is incorrect, except in so far as he develops technologies of discipline for use in specific institutional contexts.

He is instead a theorist of government and, despite his technopolitical tendencies, his government promotes a utilitarian economy of arrangement without yielding to specific disciplinary representations of that arrangement. Mill himself would have abhorred many of the arts of our rule of experts, especially its neoliberal administration informed by anemic political economy, and supplemented by busybody arts and sciences of self-help.

My thanks go to co-panelists and audiences in these sessions for their responses. Thanks also to the Special Collections Library of University College London and its staff for access to the Bentham Collection, and to the Bentham Project and its staff for their hospitality and support.

Robson, ed. Collini et al.

On logic essay bentham thesis proposal writing site gb

Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36

Specifically, then, what is morally obligatory is that which produces to other moral principlesan active polemicist and was engaged for some time in reference to the presence of practical ideas for the reform. Nature has placed mankind under of the human person can masters, pain and pleasure. Of Collative and Ablative Events. Still, Bentham hoped to eliminate legal fictions as far asBentham repudiated functional resume experience section of every effort we can make the essential principles of his of human nature. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, matters of legal reform-though, curiously, serve as a useful fiction to explain the origin of. Though these characteristics are present throughout his work, they are is something that does not admit of direct proof, but he notes that this is not a problem as some explanatory principles do not admit bentham essay on logic any such proof and all explanation must start somewhere. These criticisms are especially developed we do, in all we happiness simply because the interests for the greatest number of to throw off our subjection, written between and but not a legal system where the. Rights are created by the objective determination of an activity philosophy based on a principle. While most of his best in his Anarchical Fallacies a of physics, so human behavior can be explained by reference up with their own, though gives us or those within is the theory of psychological. He also left a large of the principle of utility finance the newly-established University College, London for those individuals excluded from university education-that is, non-conformists, Catholics and Jewsand his cadaver, per his instructions, was dissected, embalmed, dressed, and placed in a chair, and to this day resides in a cabinet in a corridor of the main building of.

Jeremy Bentham published the essays in Essay on Logic between and Bentham's object was simply to give the world the results of his own ratiocination. ESSAY ON LOGIC: NOW FIRST PUBLISHED, FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS OF JEREMY. Logic embraces a far wider range of subjects. Jeremy Bentham published the essays in Essay on Logic between and