JeremyBenthamwasbornon15February1748anddiedon6June1832inLondon.Hewastheeldersonofanattorney,JeremiahBentham(1712–92)andhisfirstwife,AliciaWhitehorn(d.1759),andbrothertoSamuel(1757–1831),anavalarchitectanddiplomat.Bentham’slaterinterestineducationalreformwasrootedinhisunhappyexperiencesatWestminsterSchool(1755–60)andQueen’sCollege,Oxford(BA1763,MA1766).HedescribedWestminsteras“awretchedplaceforinstruction”(1838–43,X,30),whilehisthreeyearsatQueen’s,whichheenteredattheageoftwelve,werenomorestimulating.HeviewedtheOxbridgecollegesasseatsofprivilege,prejudiceandidleness.HisOxfordexperiencelefthimwithadeepdistrustofoathsandsparkedageneralantipathytowardtheAnglicanestablishment(2011,35–40).Intheearly1770s,hejotteddownnotesforacriticalworkon“Subscriptions[toarticlesoffaith]”(UCv,1–32;xcvi,263–341),andreturnedtothesamethemeinthecontroversialtractSwearNotatAll(1817).
FollowingOxfordBenthamattendedtheCourtofKing’sBench,WestminsterHallaspartofhispreparationforalawcareer.ThereheheardcasesarguedbeforeLordMansfield,includingtheproceedingsagainsttheradicaljournalistandpoliticianJohnWilkes.HereturnedbrieflytoOxfordin1763–64toattendlecturesgivenbyWilliamBlackstone,thefirstVinerianProfessorofEnglishLaw,whichwerepublishedinfourcelebratedvolumesasCommentariesontheLawsofEngland(1765–69).Benthamwasnotimpressed,detectingglaringfallaciesinBlackstone’snaturallawreasoning.IntheyearsfollowingotheraspectsofBlackstone’stheoryreceivedhiscriticalattention,notablyhisdefenceofEngland’s“mixedandbalanced”governmentandEnglishcommonlaw.ThereafterBlackstonewasassociatedinBentham’smindwiththe“every-thing-as-it-should-be”schooloflegalandpoliticalapologetics.
Bentham’swritingspresentdistinctchallengesforthehistorianofideas:thedatesofpublicationarenotalwaysconsistentwiththetimeofcomposition,insomeinstanceswithmanyinterveningyears;agoodnumberwerepublishedposthumously,andsomehavestilltoappearinauthoritativeeditions;manywereproduced,editedortranslatedbyotherhandsfromoriginalmanuscriptswithlittleauthorialcontrol.
UponhisreturnfromRussia,BenthamwasencouragedbyShelburnetoturnhisattentionstoforeignpolicyandinternationallaw.Theterm“international”wascoinedbyBentham.HedraftedshortpapersonseveraltopicsthatwerelaterpublishedunderthegeneraltitlePrinciplesofInternationalLaw.Thisworkincluded,aswasthenthephilosophicalvogue,“APlanforPerpetualPeace”and,uniquely,aproposalforaninternationalcourtofarbitration(1838–43,II,535–71).SympathetictobothRussiaandFranceatthistime,in1789heissuedacritiqueofPrimeMinisterWilliamPitt’swar-likestancetowardsthesecountriesinaseriesoflettersinthePublicAdvertiserunderthenom-de-plume“Anti-Machiavel”(1838–43,X,201–11).
WhenwarbrokeoutbetweenEnglandandrevolutionaryFrance,Pitt’ssecuritymeasuresmadeitprecarioustoengageinreformactivitiesathome,butBentham’scautionalsostemmedfromtheneedtocurryfavourinofficialcirclesforthepanopticonpenitentiary(Semple1993,187–90).ThebuildingofanewprisoninLondonhadbeenauthorisedbythePenitentiaryAct1794andBentham’splaninitiallyreceivedthesupportofthePittadministration.Overtheyearshedevotedconsiderablesumsofhisownmoneytotheproject,andpublishedfurthermaterialcomparingthemeritsofthepanopticonwiththedisadvantagesofthetransportationsystem(2022).In1802,however,headmitteddefeat,andin1812thegovernmentofficiallyclosedthebooksonthewholesorryaffair,payingBentham￡23,000incompensation.
IntheinterveningyearsBenthamturnedhisattentionstopoorlawreform,thereformofpolicing,economicandfinancialquestions,judicialadministrationandtherulesofevidence—thelastofthesebeingaproductofhiscritiqueofthearchaismsandconfusionsofcommonlawandthearbitrarycharacterof“judge-madelaw”(Postema1989).
Despitethesewideandvariedinterests,thegovernment’sbetrayaloverthepanopticoncontinuedtoangerBenthamformanyyears,generatingadeep-seatedscepticismofthemotivesofthoseinpositionsofpowerandinfluence.Addedtohisownfirst-handexperienceofthemaneuversofaristocraticlandownersdeterminedtopreventtheerectionofapanopticoninthevicinityoftheirLondonestates,therewasalsoasuggestionthattheKinghimself,outragedbyBentham’s“Anti-Machiavel”lettersanddisturbedbyrumoursofhisJacobinism,mayhavedirectlyintervenedtothwarttheproject(1830–31[1838–43,XI,96–105]).InBentham’smindsuchactionswererepresentativeofthe“sinisterinterests”typicallyrangedagainstbeneficialschemesofreform.ThisinsightservedtodrawBenthamintoanopenengagementwithparliamentaryreform.AfurthercatalystcamefromhisassociationwithJamesMill,whomhemetinlate1808,andwhoformanyyearsthereafteractedashisphilosophicalandpoliticalaide-de-camp.
WithMill’sencouragement,Benthamreturnedtohisearliermanuscriptsonpoliticalreformandrefinedandsignificantlyexpandedhiscritiquetoencompasstheformsof“influence”atworkinBritishpoliticalinstitutions.Thedraftshewrotein1809–10providedtheoutlinesforhisfirstpublicstatementinsupportofrepresentativedemocracyinPlanofParliamentaryReformintheFormofaCatechismwithReasonsforEachArticle(1817).Basedonthearithmeticofinterests,aimedatlimitingthesinisterinterestsofthoseinpositionsofpowerwhilepromotingtheinterestsofthosewithoutpower,Benthamadvocatedacomprehensivesetofreforms.Theseincluded:theeliminationofroyalpatronage,asubstantialextensionofthefranchise,annualelectionsbysecretballot,theelectionofintellectuallyqualifiedandindependentmembersofparliamentwithasystemoffinestoensureregularattendance,andtheaccurateandregularpublicationofparliamentarydebates.WithoutthesereformsBenthambelievedBritainriskedrevolution.Fromthispointon,hebecamewidelyrecognisedastheforemostphilosophicalvoiceofpoliticalradicalism.
OtherpoliticalwritingsfromthistimeincludeDefenceofEconomyagainsttheRightHonourableEdmundBurkeandDefenceofEconomyagainsttheRightHonourableGeorgeRose,bothwrittenin1810butnotpublisheduntil1817(1993,39–155).Theseessaysattackedwasteandcorruptioningovernmentandwerelaterreissued,withotherpreviouslypublishedessays,inOfficialAptitudeMaximized,ExpenseMinimized(1830),theoverallaimofwhichwastooptimizethecompetenceofpublicservantswhilereducinggovernmentexpenditure.In1824,Bentham’sBookofFallaciesappeared,inwhichheemployedahumorousveinofbarbstolaybarethefallaciousreasoningfrequentlyusedtobolstersinisterinterestsandstymieproposalsforreform(2015).
Bentham’spositiononfemalesuffrageatthistimewasnuanced(Boralevi1984,Ch.2):heobjectedtotheexclusionofwomenfromthevoteinJamesMill’s1820essay“OnGovernment”(UCxxxiv,303),anexclusionhehadlongagocondemnedasfoundedonnothingbutprejudice(2002,247;1838–43,III,463),Nevertheless,inpublichearguedthatwomenweretobeexcludeduntilsuchtimeasuniversalmalesuffragehadbeenachieved(1838–43,IX,108).
Benthamnevermarried,anddiedinthecompanyoffriendsontheeveofthesigningoftheGreatReformAct.Convincedthateventhedeadshouldserveautilitarianpurpose,inhislastwillhedirectedthathisbodybepublicly“anatomised”inordertopublicizethebenefitsofdonatingbodiesformedicalresearch(Richardson1986).ThesanitaryreformerandphysicianThomasSouthwoodSmith(1832)deliveredtheeulogyoverBentham’sdissectedremains.Inpreparationforthisfinalact,inanunpublishedpamphletwrittenintheyearbeforehisdeath,Auto-Icon;orFartherUsesoftheDeadtotheLiving(printed1842,butnotthenpublished),heproposedthedisplayofauto-iconizedbodiesandheadsasameanstopublicinstruction.Herequestedthathisownmummifiedheadandskeleton,dressedinhishabitualgarments,bedisplayed,anditcanstillbeviewedtodayatUniversityCollegeLondon.Bentham’s(admittedlyeccentricandsomewhathumorous)ideasabout“auto-iconism”canalsobeunderstoodasanattempttofindasecularsubstitutefortheritualsandpracticesofconventionalreligion.
Preliminarytotheanalysisofexistinglegalsystemsandtheconstructionoftheutilitarianpannomion,in1776Benthambegandrafting“PreparatoryPrinciples”(ofcensorialjurisprudenceorwhatthelawoughttobe).Intheseover600pagesofmanuscript,nowpublishedinauthoritativeformintheCollectedWorks(2016b),heofferedaseriesofdisquisitionsonthedefinitions,distinctions,axioms,andaphorismsintendedastoolsfordemystifyingthe“fictions”ofEnglishlawandlegalpractice,fictionswhichhefounduncriticallyreiteratedinBlackstone’sCommentaries.IntheseandotherearlywritingsweseeBenthamstrivingtoemulateinthemoralworldthegreatadvancesmadeinphysicalscience.IntheprocessheconsciouslyalliedhimselfwiththemoreprogressiveelementsoftheEnlightenmentandmadeplaintheintellectualinfluencesthatshapedhisthought,notablyBacon,Locke,Hume,andtheFrenchphilosophes.
InfluencedbytheempiricismofBaconandLocke,Benthamheldthatallknowledgeisderivedfromsensation:theintellecthasnomaterialtoworkwithapartfromthatobtainedbythesenses.Inthesecondhalfofthe17thcentury,theRoyalSocietyhademphasizedtheroleofexperimentandempiricistepistemologyinthedevelopmentofthenaturalsciences.Suitablyimpressedbytheprogressmadeinthisdepartmentofknowledge,Benthamcarriedoverintomoralsciencethebasicprinciplethatpeoplecanonlyknow,inanycertainorscientificsenseofthatterm,thatwhichcanbeobservedandverified.Hearguedthatlegalscienceoughttobebuiltonthesameimmovablebasisofsensationandexperienceasthatofmedicine,declaring“whatthephysicianistothenaturalbody,thelegislatoristothepolitical:legislationistheartofmedicineexerciseduponagrandscale”(UCxxxii,168).
Thiswasthecoreofthe“experimentalmethod”forBentham;itwasanapproachimplicitlyassociatedinhismindwithamaterialistontologyandarepresentationaltheoryofmeaning.Herejectedallformsofidealisminphilosophyandinsistedthatinprincipleallmatterisquantifiableinmathematicalterms,andthisextendstothepainsandpleasuresthatweexperience—theultimatephenomenatowhichallhumanactivity(andsocialconcepts,suchasrightsandduty)couldbereducedandexplained.
InIPML,Benthamdirectedthisanalysisagainstahostofethicalpropositionshesoughttoeliminateascompetingalternativestotheutilityprinciple,suchas“moralsense”,“commonsense”,“lawofreason”,“naturaljustice”,and“naturalequity”.Allaredismissedonthegroundsthattheyaremerelyemptyphrasesthatexpressnothingbeyondthesentimentofthepersonwhoadvocatesthem.Notrepresentingverifiablereality,suchphrasescouldnotbeconsidereduseful.Indeed,theyweresurelypernicious,servingasa“pretense,andaliment,todespotism;ifnot…inpractice,adespotismhoweverindisposition”(1970,28n).Bycomparison,“utility”wasaprinciplerootedintheempiricalandverifiablefactsofthefeltexperienceofpainsandpleasures.
AtthebeginningofIPMLBenthamofferedthefamousdeclamationthatunderscorestheprimacyofpainsandpleasuresinutilitariantheory:
Therearetwoformsofhedonismexpressedinthisseminalpassage:(1)psychologicalhedonism,whichstatesthatallmotivesofactionaregroundedintheapprehensionofpainorthedesireforpleasure;and(2)ethicalhedonism,whichholdsthatpleasureistheonlygoodandactionsarerightinsofarastheytendtoproducepleasureoravoidpain.AsBenthamwentontoexplain,allowingfor“immunityfrompain”,pleasureis“theonlygood”,andpain“withoutexception,theonlyevil”(1970,100).Assuch,painandpleasurearethefinalcauseofindividualactionandtheefficientcauseandmeanstoindividualhappiness.
NorweretheseobservationsrestrictedtohumankindinBentham’sview—theproposedpenalcodewastoincludeasectiononcrueltytoanimals.Asheexplained,“thequestionisnot,CantheyreasonNor,cantheytalkBut,cantheysuffer”(1970,283n)—apropositionthatliesatthebeginningsofutilitarianargumentsfortheethicaltreatmentofanimals(seeSinger1975).
Sinceeachperson’shappinessisconstitutedoftheaggregatebalanceofpleasuresoverpains,thisis“thesoleendwhichthelegislatoroughttohaveinview:thesolestandardinconformitytowhicheachindividualought,asfarasdependsuponthelegislator,tobemadetofashionhisbehaviour”(1970,34).ButhowisthelegislatortoinfluenceindividualactionsandgainconformitytohisdecisionsBenthamdelineatedfour“sanctions”orsourcesofpainandpleasure,whichhemayhavelearntfromGay’sessayConcerningtheFundamentalPrincipleofVirtueorMorality(1731):physical,political,moral,andreligious.Thesesanctions(helateraddedsympathytothelist)areavailabletothemoralistandtothelegislatoringuidinganddetermininganindividual’smoralconduct,andtheyexplainhowanessentiallyself-interestedindividualmaybeencouragedand,wherenecessary,directedtoperformactionsthatpromotethegreatesthappinessofbothhimselfandothers.Itisincumbentontheutilitarianlegislator,therefore,tounderstandthe“value”ofthepainsandpleasureshemustemploytoachievethisobjective.
InHelvétius’account“interest”liesattheepicentreofmoralscience,butBenthamrecognisedthattheconceptonlyhadmeaning,likeotherfictitiousentitiesinethicssuchas“desire”and“motive”,whenredefinedintermsoftheavoidanceofpainsandacquisitionofpleasures(1970,12;1838–43,VIII,290).IngeneralhefollowedAdamSmithinbelievingtheindividualtobethebestjudgeofhisorherowninterests,butthesimplicityofthispropositionisdeceptive(seeEngelmann2001).
Benthamaddressedthepotentialdisjunctionbetweenanagent’sperceptionofherinterestandherrealinterestinhiswritingsonindirectlaw,whichhedescribedas“asecretplanofconnectedandlong-concertedoperationstobeexecutedinthewayofastratagemorpetiteguerre”(2010b,233).Theaimistotellindividualswhattheyshouldnotdo,butalsotoprovidethemwithmotives(painsandpleasuresinprospect)sufficienttodiverttheirdesiresintochannelsbestdesignedtoservethepublicinterest.Codesofbehaviourandother“implementsofmoralinstruction”,suchastextsof“history,biography,novelsanddramaticcompositions”(UClxxxvii,18–19),couldbeutilisedtodivertpeoplefrominclinationsdamagingtothemselvesandothersandtoteachthemtoderivepleasurefrombenevolence.Inthiswaygovernmentcouldeducateitscitizenstomakemoreeffectivechoices,oratleastguidethemintomoreappropriatepathstoachievetheirrealinterests(1838–43,I,161).
Asiswellknown,whileadheringtothebasicBenthamicanalysisofmotives,inUtilitarianism(1861)J.S.Millintroducedtheconceptof“higherpleasures”,bywhichhemeantaestheticandspiritualgratificationandthepleasuresoftheintellect,andclaimedthesewereintrinsicallymoredesirablethanotherpleasures.ThistendedtounderminetheaggregativedimensionofthetheorylaiddownbyBentham,sincethedepthoffeelingassociatedwithsuchpleasuresresistquantification.Recentcommentators,however,havequestionedwhetherthedistancebetweenBenthamandMillisaslargeascommonlysupposed,arguingforexamplethat“intensity”and“purity”arequalitiesofpainsandpleasuresthat,inprinciple,arestillsubjecttomeasurement,atleastwhencomparingalternativeactionsonthesameindex(Warke2000;Rosen2003,Ch.10).
Inthe1829“ArticleonUtilitarianism”Benthampointedtotwolater“improvements”tohisunderstandingoftheutilityprinciple—the“disappointment-preventionprinciple”andthe“greatesthappinessprinciple”(asubstituteforthe“greatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber”formula).
ForBentham,thesignificanceofthisprincipleasapracticalguidecouldhardlybeoverstated.Itis,hesays,the“oneall-comprehensiverule”uponwhichallpropertyarrangementsoughttobebased(1983a,308),andbythis,“thefirstapplication,orsayemanation,ofthegreatesthappinessprinciple”,allthearrangementsofthelawofproperty“initsmostextensivesense”,meaning“allobjectsofgeneraldesire”,oughttobeordered(295–96;seealso1838–43,III,312).
Benthamdetectedaseriousandpotentiallydebilitatingdefectinrenderingtheutilityprincipleasthe“greatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber”.Hecametoseethatsuchaprinciplecouldjustifyinordinatesacrificesbyaminority,howeverthatminoritymightbecomposed,intheinterestofenhancingthehappinessofamajority.Heconsideredthisafalseconclusion,butonethatneededtobeaddressed.“Bethecommunityinquestionwhatitmay”,hewrites,“divideitintotwounequalparts,calloneofthemthemajority,theothertheminority,layoutoftheaccountthefeelingsoftheminority,includeintheaccountnofeelingsbutthoseofthemajority,theresultyouwillfindisthattotheaggregatestockofthehappinessofthecommunity,loss,notprofit,istheresultoftheoperation”.Thelessthenumericaldifferencebetweentheminorityandmajority,themoreobviousthedeficiencyinaggregatehappinesswillbe(1983a,309).Logically,then,thecloserweapproximatethehappinessofallthemembersofthecommunity,thegreatertheaggregateofhappiness.
Relatedtothisconceptionoftheuniversalinterestistheegalitariancommitmentthatinarrivingattheappropriatelaworpolicytheinterestsofeachandallmustcount,andcountequally(1840[1864],I,144).Thisdoesnotmeanthatoptimalutilityisnotthegoal,butsimplystressesthatoptimalutilityismorelikelyachievedwherethereisanapproximateequalityinthedistributionofthebasicrequirementsofhappiness(Postema1998).
Fromearlyoninhisutilitariantheorizing,Benthamunderstoodthattheachievementofutilitarianobjectivesinpracticerequiredthetranslationoftheutilityprincipleintoelementsamenabletoimplementationinwaysthatthephilosophicallyabstractprincipleitselfcouldnotbe.Concretemanifestationsofhappiness,forexample,couldbefoundinpersonalsecurityandreducedcrimerates,enhancedhealthanddecliningdeathrates,broaderopportunitiesforeducation,thereductionofdiseasescausedbysewagepollution,andsoon.Thestatisticalmeasurementoftheseandotherissueswouldprovideasolidbasisforthedissectionofexistinglawandthedevelopmentofnewlaw,butBentham’sthirstforsuchinformationwasalwayswellinadvanceoftheavailabledata.Thisdeficiencydidnot,however,preventhimfromdevelopingthetheoreticalapparatustodirecttheformulationofsuchlaws.
Thetheoryof“diminishingmarginalutility”alsolendssupporttoequalizationpolicies,dictatingthatdecreasestothewealthofarichmancauselesspainthansimilardecreasestoapoorman,whileadditionstothewealthofthepoormanbringhappinessinagreateramountthantheywouldtoarichman(1840[1864],I,103–9).InFirstPrinciplesPreparatorytoConstitutionalCode,written1822butnotthenpublished,Benthamwentfurther,topostulatethatthegreatesthappinessofthepeople“requiresthattheexternalinstrumentsoffelicity,whatsoevertheymaybe,besharedbythewholenumberinaproportionsoneartoequalityasisconsistentwithuniversalsecurity”(1989,16;seealso1840[1864],I,104).However,herefusedtocountenancetheideathatpoliciestoredistributewealthatthecostofsecuritywouldbebeneficialeithertosocialprosperityorindividualwellbeing.Proposalstoalterthedistributionofwealthinlinewithdiminishingmarginalutilitymust,therefore,beconductedinaccordancewiththe“disappointment-preventionprinciple”.
Ontheotherhand,Benthambelievedthatasystemoflawsbasedontheutilityprinciplewouldgraduallyand“indirectly”evolvetowardsgreaterequalityinthedistributionofgoods,andpointedtothehistoricalevidenceofpost-feudalEuropeinsupportofhisposition.Inthelongrunthekeytoachievingamoreequaldistributionofpropertylayinabundance:“inanationprosperousinitsagriculture,itsmanufacturesanditscommerce,thereisacontinualprogresstowardsequality”(1840[1864],I,123).TheimportantcaveatBenthamintroducedtojustifythisoptimismistheprovisothatgovernmentmustnotimpedethistendencybyallowingmonopolies,putting“shackles”ontradeandindustry,orplacingobstaclesinthepathofthedivisionofpropertyoninheritance.
CivilandpenallawareinextricablyconnectedinBentham’slegaltheory.Justastheprimarypurposeofcivillawiseconomicsecurityandnationalprosperity,soitdrawspowerfulsupportfromtheprotectionaffordedpersons,propertyandexpectationsbythethreatofpunishment(1838–43,III,203).Tothisend,utilitarianpenallawisframedintermsoftheprincipalobjectiveofdeterrence,butitalsoembracesthesecondaryendsofdisablement,moralreformation,andcompensation(seeCrimmins2011).Theeffectivenessofthetheoryinpracticedependsontwoadditionalfeatures:offencesmustbeclassifiedsolelyonthebasisoftheharmperpetrated,andtheremustbeanappropriateproportionbetweencrimesandpunishments.ItisbecauseofitsfailuretosatisfythefirstfeaturethatBentham(2014)rejectedtheprevailingcriminalizationofconsensualsexualacts,anddevelopedthefirstsystematicdefenceofsexuallibertyintheEnglishlanguage.
Insettlingtherequiredproportionsofpunishment,Benthamrecognisedhehadburdenedthelegislatorwithavastlycomplextask—thecalculationofthecorrectquantityandtypeofpainneededtoachievethedesiredends,inparticulartheobjectiveofdeterrence.Toguidethelegislatorinproportioningpunishmentstooffenceshestipulatedthirteenrulesor“canons”,suchasthatthepunishmentmustoutweightheprofitoftheoffence,venturemoreagainstagreatoffencethanasmallone,punishforeachparticleofthemischief,andthelike(1970,167–71;seealsoBedau,2004;Draper,2009).Thedelineationofsuchguidelinestoprotectagainst“unfrugal”orexcessivepunishmentsisindicativeofhisattempttobeascomprehensiveandasexactaspossiblewhileattendingtopracticalities.ThisisnowheremoreapparentthaninBentham’scriticalanalysisofthedeathpenalty.
Subordinateendsarealsoevidentinthedesignandmanagementofthepanopticonprison:securityandeconomyareforemost,buttemperedbyhumanityandaccountability.Impressedbythedynamicofitscirculararchitecturewhichallowedthewarden,obscuredfromviewintheshutteredwatchtower,toobservetheactivitiesofprisonersdayandnight,MichelFoucaulttooktheperspectivethat“panopticism”defineda“newphysicsofpower”,anexperimental“laboratoryofpower”inwhichbehaviourcouldbemodified,andheviewedthepanopticon—that“cruel,ingeniouscage”—asasymboloftherepressive,disciplinarysociety,themodern“societyofsurveillance”(Foucault208).Thisviewofthepanopticonhasopenedupsomeinterestinglinesofdiscourseontheencroachingmethodsofcontrolandsurveillanceincontemporaryliberalsocieties(Brunon-Ernst2012).However,asacritiqueofBentham’sproposalsithardlydoesjusticetotheintricaciesoftheproject,asSemple(1993)hasshown.
Aswiththepanopticon,economy,transparencyandaccountabilitywereequallyimportantinBentham’sinnovativeaccountofadministration,asweredevicestoensurethemaximizationof“intellectual”,“moral”,and“active”aptitudeinpublicofficials.Ingovernmentutilitarianoutcomesrequiredvariousdemocraticproceduresthatfunctionas“securitiesagainstmisrule”.Theseproceduresinclude:“virtual”universalsuffrage,annualparliaments,thesecretballot,andprovisionsfortransparency,publicityandunconstrainedpublicdebate.
ThepopulardimensionsoftheconstitutionalcodeappeartoruncontrarytothelegalpositivismcommonlyassociatedwithBentham’sutilitarianism,whichimpliesatheoryofsovereigntythatrequiresthatpowerbelocatedinthehandsofthelegislator,howeverconstituted,andstipulatesthatalllawsareimperativeanddependfortheirenforcementoncoercivesanctions.RosenhasarguedthatasearlyasAFragmentonGovernment,BenthamrejectedtheHobbesianideaofsovereigntybasedonsimplecommandandobedience,inwhichthesovereignisnecessarilyasingle,unifiedsupremepower,infavourof“thenotionsofthelegallimitationanddivisionofsovereignpower”(Rosen1983,41,44).
BenthamdidnotconsiderthattheeffectivenessofthePOTasacheckonmisrulecouldbeunderminedbysecretgovernmentmethodstolimittheflowofinformation,nordiditoccurtohimthatapressdominatedbytheviewsofoneclassorbyspecialinterestscouldsubverttheveracityoftheinformationitdisseminated.Hepinnedhisfaithontransparencyandpublicity(Postema2014,49).Ideally,thepublicwouldbeadequatelyinformed,andthePOTwouldbeconstitutedbythoseamongthepublicwhowerebothknowledgeableandconcernedabouttheissuesbeforeit.Itsjudgementscouldchangeasnewevidencecametolightorasnewargumentswereenunciated,anditcouldbefragmentedorunifiedinitsviewinproportiontothevarietyofindividualopinionsexpressed.
AndrésBellousedSalas’translationasthebasictextforhislawlecturesattheColegiodeSantiagoinChile,asdidPedroAlcántradeSomellera,ProfessorofCivilLawattheUniversityofBuenosAires.In1825FranciscodePaulaSantander,theVice-PresidentofGranColombia,decreedthattheworkberequiredreadingforalllawstudentsinthevastterritoriesofthenewrepublic,butin1828itsPresidentSimónBolívar,thelegendary“Liberator”,afterpreviouslyembracingtheprinciplesandpurposeofBentham’slegalphilosophy,bowedtoclericalpressureandbanneditsteachingasdetrimentaltoreligion,morality,andsocialorder(1838–43,X,552–54).Santander,whowasmoreinclinedtoresisttheinfluenceoftheCatholicChurch,restoredittothecurriculumoftheuniversitieswhenhebecamePresidentofthenewlyconstitutedstateofColombiain1832.
IntheUnitedStates,thedisseminationofutilitarianismwasinitiallyhamperedbytheabsenceofanEnglishtranslationoftheTraités,buttheretooBentham’sinfluencewasnotlonginbeingfelt.DavidHoffmanfirstintroducedutilitarianideasintolegaleducationinAmericaattheUniversityofMarylandintheearly1820s.JohnNeal,whostudiedlawunderHoffman’sguidance,describedHoffmanasoneofBentham’s“mostenthusiasticadmirers”(Neal1830,300).InhisbibliographicACourseofLegalStudy(1817),HoffmanrecommendedstudentsreadpartsofDumont’sredactionofBentham,Théoriedespeinesetdesrécompenses(2vols.,1811),anditwasHoffmanwhoencouragedNealtotranslatetheTraitésintoEnglish,ataskhebeganduringtheeighteenmonthshestayedwithBenthaminLondonin1825–26.Intheevent,onlytheintroductorysectionsoftheTraitésappearedinNeal’sPrinciplesofLegislation(1830),partsofwhichhadfirstappearedinaseriesofarticlesinTheYankee,ajournalheeditedunderthebannerheading“thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber”.
Bentham’sinfluencecontinuedthroughoutthecenturyinAmerica,wheretheTraitéspavedthewayforthereceptionofothereditionsandversionsofhiswritings,whichinturnledtosympatheticresponsestothemoreamenableformsofutilitarianmoralandlegaltheoryofferedbyJohnAustin,J.S.Mill,andHenrySidgwick.Ontheotherhand,Bentham’spoliticalprescriptionsmadelittleimpactintheUnitedStates,whichwas,bycomparisontoaristocraticEngland,alreadyanadvanceddemocracy.IftheutilitarianConstitutionalCodewasdirected“fortheuseofallnationsandallgovernmentsprofessingliberalopinions”,asitstitlepagedeclared,thepoliticalpositionsitembracedwererecommended,inthefirstinstance,foradoptionathome.
ForallBentham’ssuccessabroad,intheearlyyearsofthenineteenthcenturyhewaslittleknowninhisowncountry.TheApril1804issueoftheEdinburghReviewannouncedhisarrivalontheBritishstageinasubstantialcriticalreviewofDumont’sTraités,thoughhismainappealwasinitiallyconfinedtoasmallbandoflawreformersdeterminedtotackletheantiquatedandnotoriouslyharshpunishmentsmetedoutbyEnglishpenallaw.IntheyearsfollowingthedefeatofNapoleonin1815,however,whencallsforlegal,social,andpoliticalreformwerebecomingcommonplace,Bentham’sreputationinBritainwastransformedfromthatofaneccentricandoftenmisunderstoodoracleontheperipheryoftheintellectualandpoliticalworldtothatofavenerablesagesituatedatthecenterofabroadreformmovement.Throughoutthefollowingcenturyhisinfluencecontinuedtobefelt,particularlyindiscussionsofmoralandlegalphilosophyandeconomictheoryandpractice.
JohnAustinbecameacquaintedwithBentham’sutilitarianlegalphilosophyduringhisundergraduateyearsatCambridge.In1821hewashiredtotutorJ.S.MillinRomanlaw,beganattendingmeetingsoftheUtilitarianSocietyestablishedbytheyoungerMillin1823,andin1826wasappointedtotheChairofJurisprudenceatthenewlyfoundedUniversityofLondon,wherehewasthefirstinEnglandtointroduceutilitarianideasintolegaleducation.BuildingonBentham’sscienceoflegislation,Austinimporteditsleadingideasintohisownjurisprudence,nonemoresothanBentham’sdistinctionbetweenthelawasitisandthelawasitoughttobe,anideathatstandsatthefoundationofthedoctrineoflegalpositivism(1977,397).WiththeposthumouspublicationofLecturesonJurisprudenceorThePhilosophyofPositiveLaw(1863),Austin’slegalphilosophywastohaveamajorimpactonEnglishandAmericanjurisprudence—inthelattercontexthisconceptualizationofthenatureofsovereigntyprovedespeciallyinfluential.
OntheothersideoftheledgerwefindthelibertarianHerbertSpencerwhodeployedtheutilityprincipleinManversustheState(1884)andotherwritingstounderwritethelibertyoftheindividual,defendtheexistingsocialorder,andattackthedrifttowardssocialismand“slavery”.JamesFitzjamesStephen,HenrySidgwick,andA.V.Diceyalladvocatedversionsofutilitarianindividualism,althoughSidgwickoccasionallygavevoiceto“socialist”sentimentsindevelopinghisintuitionalutilitariantheoryinTheMethodsofEthics(1874).Reform-mindedliberalssuchasJ.A.HobsonandL.T.Hobhouseviewedthemselvesas“new”utilitarians,findingintheproteannatureofutilitarianismajustificationfordistinctlynon-individualistpolicies.ThusHobhouseinLiberalism(1911)incorporatedutilitarianismintoanewliberaldiscoursethat,inadditiontolaissez-faireeconomics(andnotwithstandingHerbertSamuel’squasi-Benthamicmotto“thegreatestlibertyofthegreatestnumber”)alsoincludedelementsofsocialism,socialDarwinianism,andthereformistidealismofT.H.Green.
MichaelQuinnandDavidLieberman,generousandwisecolleagues,gavecarefulattentiontoanearlierdraftofthisarticleandIamgreatlyindebtedtothemfortheimportantimprovementstheyrecommended.IamalsogratefultotheSEP’sanonymousreviewerforcorrectingstylisticinfelicitiesinthearticle.