Utilitarianism as a

Theory of Justice

Made by:
Abhay Bajaj (A3221514030)
Semester: 7
BBA. LLB. (H)
Acknowledgement

I, Abhay Bajaj, a student of Amity Law School – 1, Noida; Course BBA.LLB.(H), Semester 5,
Enrollment number A3221514030, am highly grateful to Dr. Vikas Gupta for giving me the
practical knowledge of ulititarianism and also helping me understand the aspects jurisprudence. He
has been a great mentor and very supportive in the compilation of this report. I would also like to
thank my classmates for helping me complete this report on time.
ABOUT JEREMY BENTHAM

Jeremy Bentham ( 1748 to 1832) was an English jurist, philosopher, and legal and social reformer.
He was a political radical and a leading theorist in AngloAmerican philosophy of law. He
propounded the theory of utilitarianism and fair treatment of animals. He influenced the
development of liberalism.

Bentham was one of the most influential utilitarians. His influence spread all around the world,
through his and his students. These included his secretary and collaborator on the utilitarian school
of philosophy James Mill, James Mill's son John Stuart Mill, and several political leaders. He
attributed his theory to Joseph Priestley.

He also suggested the procedure called Hedonistic or felicific calculus for estimating the moral
status of any action. Utilitarianism was revised and expanded by Bentham's student, John Stuart
Mill.

He was also the staunch supporter of the individual liberty and right to private property. Austin is
called the father of the analytical school but it is Bentham, who deserves this title. Bentham also
advocated for the codification of laws and also advoced for the legislation.
WORKS OF BENTHAM

Most of the writing of Bentham were never published in his own lifetime; much of that which was
published was prepared for publication by others.Works published in Bentham's lifetime included:

 Fragment on Government (1776). This was an unsparing criticism of some introductory

passages relating to political theory in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of
England.
 Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation (printed for publication 1780,
published 1789)
 Defence of Usury (1787)
 Panopticon (1787, 1791)
 Emancipate your Colonies (1793)
 Traité de Législation Civile et Penale (1802)
 Punishments and Rewards (1811)
 A Table of the Springs of Action (1815)
 Parliamentary Reform Catechism (1817)
 ChurchofEnglandism (printed 1817, published 1818)
 Elements of the Art of Packing (1821)
 The Influence of Natural Religion upon the Temporal Happiness of Mankind (1822)
 Not Paul But Jesus (1823)
 Book of Fallacies (1824)
 A Treatise on Judicial Evidence (1825)
 The essay Offences Against One's Self, argued for the liberalisation of laws prohibiting
homosexuality. It was published for the first time in 1931.
PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

Utility was defined by Bentham as “the principle which approves or disapproves of every action
whatsoever according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the
happiness of the party whose interest is in question.” The principle of utility is designed to promote
the happiness of the individual or the community. The community can have no interests
independent of or aggressive to the interests of the individual. According to Bentham, community
interest is sum of the interests of the members who compose it.

According to him the business of the government was to promote happiness among the masses, by
furthering the enjoyment of pleasure and providing security against the pain. For him it was the
greatest happiness of the greatest number of the people, which constituted the principle of utility. A
happy society constitutes a happy polity. Public good is the object of the legislator.

To know the true good of the community is science of legislation and finding the means to realize
that good constitutes the art of legislation. According to his theory, mankind is always under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. They point out what we ought to do, as
well as to determine what we shall do. They govern us in all our actions and thoughts. In words a
man may pretend to reject their empire: but in reality he will remain subject to it all the while. The
principle of utility recognizes this subjection, and assumes it for the foundation of that system, the
object of which is to nurture the fabric of felicity by the hands of reason and of law.

The Benthamite legislator, seeking to ensure happiness for the community must strive to attain four
goals of subsistence, abundance, equality, and security citizens. He referred all these goals as the
functions of law. The goal of security was paramount and principal one. Next to security, he gave
emphasis to the goal of equality.

Bentham never questioned the desirability of economic individualism and private property. The
law, according to him, can do nothing to provide directly for the subsistence of the citizens. It can
impose penalty or give rewards, which indirectly act as the force behind the subsistence of the
individual. He did not force for the limitations on state interventions and social reforms.
By the principle of utility approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the
tendency it appears to have to enhance or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in
question.

What is utility:

By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage,
pleasure, good, or happiness, (all this in the present case comes to the same thing) or (what comes
again to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the
party whose interest is considered, whether that party is the community in general or a particular
individual. The community is a fictitious body, composed of the individual persons who are
considered as constituting as it were its members. The interest of the community then is the sum of
the interests of the several members who compose it.

A thing is said to promote the interest of an individual, when it tends to add to the sum total of his
pleasures or, to diminish the sum total of his pains. An action then may be said to be conformable
to the principle of utility, when it tends to enlarge the happiness of the community is greater than to
diminish it. A measure of government may be said to be conformable to or dictated by the principle
of utility, when it tends to augment the happiness of the community than to diminish it. A follower
of the principle of utility approves or disapproves any action, or any measure, on account of the
tendency it has to augment or to diminish the happiness of the community.

Those actions are conformable to the principle of utility, which one may always say either that it is
one that ought to be done, or at least that it is not one that ought not to be done. His works were
based on "the greatest happiness of the greatest number” principle.
Principles Adverse to that of Utility

A principle may be different from that of utility in two ways:

times opposed to it, and sometimes not as in a case of the principle of sympathy and
antipathy.

1. By
eing
const
antly
oppo
sed
to it
as in
the
case
of a
princ
iple
of
ascet
icism
.

2. By
being
some
Principle of asceticism.

By the principle of asceticism, Bentham meant that principle, which, acting inversely to the
principle of utility, approve of actions in as far as they tend to diminish his happiness and
disapprove of them in as far as they tend to augment it.

This principle has been followed by two classes of men. The one class belongs to philosophers and
the other to devotees. The ascetic philosophers have flattered themselves with the idea to rise above
humanity, by despising vulgar pleasures. The ascetic devotees are tormented by ineffective terrors.
The devotees have carried the ascetic principle further than the philosophers. The philosophical
party have paid a heap to degenerate pleasure but the devotees have frequently gone so far as to
make it a matter of merit and of duty to court pain.

The pleasure was received and applauded when it took the titles of honour, glory, reputation,
decorum, or selfesteem. The principle of asceticism never was, nor ever can be, consistently
pursued by any living creature.

Principle of sympathy and antipathy

By the principle of sympathy and antipathy, Bentham meant that principle which approves or
disapproves of certain actions, not on account of their tending to augment the happiness or on
account of their tending to diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question. This
principle meant the approbation or disapprobation of certain action by a man on ground that a man
finds himself inclined to approve or disapprove of them, holding up that approbation or
disapprobation as a sufficient reason for itself, and denying the necessity of looking out for any
extrinsic ground. The quantum of punishment, based on this principle, dictates to punish less if man
hates that action less, more if he hates it more.
The principle of sympathy and antipathy is most apt to err on the side of severity. It is for
applying punishment in many cases which deserve none: in many cases which deserve some, it is
for applying more than they deserve. There is no incident imaginable, be it ever so trivial, and so
remote from mischief, from which this principle may not extract a ground of punishment.

PLEASURES AND PAINS

Bentham has referred the pains and pleasures by one general word, interesting perceptions.
Interesting perceptions are either simple or complex. The simple ones are those which cannot be
resolved into more: complex are those which are resolvable into divers simple ones. A complex
interesting perception may accordingly be composed either:

 Of pleasures alone
 Of pains alone: or,
 Of a pleasure or pleasures, and a pain or pains together.
 Several simple pleasures.

The simple pleasures, according to Bentham, include:

1. The pleasures of sense.

2. The pleasures of wealth.
3. The pleasures of skill.
4. The pleasures of amity.
5. The pleasures of a good name.
6. The pleasures of power.
7. The pleasures of piety.
8. The pleasures of benevolence.
 9. The pleasures of malevolence.
10. The pleasures of memory.
11. The pleasures of imagination.
12. The pleasures of expectation.
13. The pleasures dependent on association.
14. The pleasures of relief.
15. Several simple pains.

Several simple pains can be listed as follows:

1. The pains of privation.

2. The pains of the senses.
3. The pains of awkwardness.
4. The pains of enmi
5. The pains of an ill name.
6. The pains of piety.
7. The pains of benevolence.
8. The pains of malevolence.
9. The pains of the memory.
10. The pains of the imagination.
11. The pains of expectation.
12. The pains dependent on association.
Critisism

Regardless of debate as to the origin of ethics - are they innate or are they learned, are they God
given or are they manmade constructs - the fact that ethics are invaluable to the human race
remains uncontested. Imagine a world where we do not have ethical etiquettes guiding us. In
such a world, what is to stop us from murdering each other, going as far as to push humankind
off the brink of extinction? Perhaps that is an extreme scenario, but ethical constructs have
proven to be vital to humanity, and the breaking of said construct has often resulted in severe
consequences.

Now the question of which ethical code should be embraced, must be addressed. I would not
consider religious ethical codes for the simple reason that they are numerous and are often most
fitted to the adherents of the religions they stem from. For this purpose of this paper, I will offer
a thorough examination of the utilitarian (also known as the "Happiness Theory") approach to
ethics. I will first give an account of the theory's paradigm, as laid out by Jeremy Bentham, the
father of Utilitarianism, and John Stuart Mill. I will then examine proposed objections to
utilitarianism. Finally, I would evaluate the practicality of the theory, taking into account the
advantages and disadvantages it posses.

Section 1 - The principle of utility

At the core of the principle of utility is the rule that we should opt to carry out actions, which
yield the most happiness; such actions are recognized as right. Likewise, actions which produce
the opposite of happiness should be avoided; these actions are recognized as wrong. Such
approach to ethics is rooted in the idea that pain and pleasure play a crucial role in the lives of
man, seeing as we seek pleasure and avoid pain. The principle of utility focuses on generating
the greatest happiness for the community it applies to. Utilitarianism also encourages us to take
into consideration not just the quantity of happiness, but also the quality. We should seek out
higher levels of happiness.

In terms of the enforcement of utilitarian principles, Mill argues that the principles of the ethical
system can be enforced just like those of other systems. Mill states that internal and external
methods of enforcement can be used to ensure obedience of the rules. Internal enforcement deals
with the retribution brought on by the conscience of an individual when he/she commits a
wrongs action, bringing about pain in the case of utilitarianism, while external enforcements are
those brought on by the society, or a higher power.

Unlike most ethical system, utilitarianism does not directly include a god, or supreme being in its
framework. Considering that it was developed in the 18th century, when belief in, and reverence
to the Judeo-Christian god was very prominent in Europe, the fact that the principle of utility did
not account for god, created an issue. Utilitarianism was often accused of being a "godless" set of
ethics. However, as Mill pointed out, given the belief that god wants what is best for humanity,
and that god wants us to be happy, utilitarianism is actually the godliest system of ethics there is .
The argument of whether utilitarianism is godly or not relies of the nature of god, in terms of
what he considers moral, but we do not know the nature of god, so utilitarianism cannot be really
accused being ungodly. Moreover, seeing things for the Christian point of view, utilitarianism is
in direct agreement of the number one rule of Jesus Christ; treat others the way you would like to
be treated. Hence, in a way, utilitarianism does account for god, the Judeo-Christian god at least.
CONCLUSION

Bentham's contributed his best in the creation of a "Pannomion", a complete Utilitarian code of
law. Bentham not only proposed many legal and social reforms, but also expounded an underlying
moral principle on which they should be based. This philosophy, utilitarianism, argued that the
right act or policy was that which would cause "the greatest happiness of the greatest number”
often referred to as the principle of utility.

Thogh he supported the state interventions and reforms, he was a staunch supporter of
individualism and private property ownerships. Utilitarianism was revised and expanded by
Bentham's student, John Stuart Mill. Bentham's theory, unlike Mill's, faces several criticisms.
REFERENCES

URLs.

 http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bentham/morals.pdf
 http://www.la.utexas.edu/labyrinth/ipml/ipml.c05.html
 http://www.la.utexas.edu/labyrinth/ipml/ipml.toc.html
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Utilitarianism

Books.

 Baxi, Upendra, Bentham’s Theory of Legislation, 7th ed. (reprint), 2006, Lexis Nexis,
New Delhi.
 Bodenheimer, Edgar, Jurisprudence the Philosophy and Method of the Law, 5th ed.
(Reprint), 2006, Universal Law Publishing Co., Delhi.

Page | 14