Editing Jeremy Bentham (section)

=== Utilitarianism ===
{{Utilitarianism}}

Bentham today is considered as the "Father of Utilitarianism".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Burke |first= T. Patrick |title= Nozick, Robert (1938–2002) |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |chapter= Bentham, Jeremy (1748–1832) |chapter-url= https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/libertarianism/n19.xml |year=2008 |publisher= [[SAGE Publications]], [[Cato Institute]] |location= Thousand Oaks, CA |doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n220 |isbn= 978-1412965804 |oclc=750831024| lccn = 2008009151 |pages=30–31}}</ref> His ambition in life was to create a "Pannomion", a complete [[utilitarianism|utilitarian]] code of law. He not only proposed many legal and social reforms, but also expounded an underlying moral principle on which they should be based. This philosophy of [[utilitarianism]] took for its "fundamental axiom" to be the notion that ''it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong''.{{sfn|Bentham|1776|p= |loc=Preface (2nd para.)}} Bentham claimed to have borrowed this concept from the writings of [[Joseph Priestley]],{{sfn|Bentham |1821 |p=24 }} although the closest that Priestley in fact came to expressing it was in the form "the good and happiness of the members, that is the majority of the members of any state, is the great standard by which {{Sic|every thing}} relating to that state must finally be determined."{{sfn|Priestley|1771|p=17}}

Bentham was a rare major figure in the history of philosophy to endorse [[psychological egoism]].<ref name="May" /> He was also a determined opponent of religion, as Crimmins observes: "Between 1809 and 1823 Jeremy Bentham carried out an exhaustive examination of religion with the declared aim of extirpating religious beliefs, even the idea of religion itself, from the minds of men."{{sfn|Crimmins|1986|p=95}}

Bentham also suggested a procedure for estimating the [[moral status]] of any action, which he called the [[Hedonism|hedonistic]] or [[felicific calculus]].

'''Principle of utility'''
{{Hedonism}}
The principle of utility, or "[[greatest happiness principle]]", forms the cornerstone of all Bentham's thought. By "happiness", he understood a predominance of "pleasure" over "pain". He wrote in ''[[An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation]]'':<ref>Bentham, Jeremy. 1780. "[http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Fontes/BenthamJeremyMoralsandLegislation1789.pdf#page=43 Of The Principle of Utility]". pp. 1–6 in ''[[An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation]]''. London: T. Payne and Sons. [https://www.utilitarianism.com/jeremy-bentham/#one eText]. p. 1.</ref>

{{blockquote|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. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think.…|author=|title=|source=}}

Bentham's ''Principles of Morals and Legislation'' focuses on the principle of utility and how this view of morality ties into legislative practices.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=Bentham |first=Jeremy |title=An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation|date=2005|publisher=Elibron Classics|isbn=1421290480|location=[Chestnut Hill, Mass.?]|oclc=64578728}}</ref> His principle of utility regards ''good'' as that which produces the greatest amount of pleasure and the minimum amount of pain and ''evil'' as that which produces the most pain without the pleasure. This concept of '''pleasure and pain''' is defined by Bentham as physical as well as spiritual. Bentham writes about this principle as it manifests itself within the legislation of a society.<ref name=":1" />

In order to measure the extent of pain or pleasure that a certain decision will create, he lays down a set of criteria divided into the categories of '''intensity''', '''duration''', '''certainty''', '''proximity''', '''productiveness''', '''purity''', and '''extent'''.<ref name=":1" /> Using these measurements, he reviews the concept of punishment and when it should be used as far as whether a punishment will create more pleasure or more pain for a society.

He calls for legislators to determine whether punishment creates an even more evil offence. Instead of suppressing the evil acts, Bentham argues that certain unnecessary laws and punishments could ultimately lead to new and more dangerous vices than those being punished to begin with, and calls upon legislators to measure the pleasures and pains associated with any legislation and to form laws in order to create the greatest good for the greatest number. He argues that the concept of the individual pursuing his or her own happiness cannot be necessarily declared "right", because often these individual pursuits can lead to greater pain and less pleasure for a society as a whole. Therefore, the legislation of a society is vital to maintain the maximum pleasure and the minimum degree of pain for the greatest number of people.{{citation needed|date=June 2018}}

==== Hedonistic/felicific calculus ====
In his exposition of the [[felicific calculus]], Bentham proposed a classification of 12 pains and 14 pleasures, by which we might test the "'''happiness factor'''" of any action.<ref>Bentham, Jeremy. 1780. "[http://www.koeblergerhard.de/Fontes/BenthamJeremyMoralsandLegislation1789.pdf#page=68 Value of a Lot of Pleasure or Pain, How to be Measured]". pp. 26–29 in ''[[An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation]]''. London: T. Payne and Sons. [https://www.utilitarianism.com/jeremy-bentham/#four eText].</ref> For Bentham, according to P. J. Kelly, the law "provides the basic framework of social interaction by delimiting spheres of personal inviolability within which individuals can form and pursue their own conceptions of well-being".{{sfn|Kelly|1990|p=81}} It provides security, a precondition for the formation of expectations. As the hedonic calculus shows "expectation utilities" to be much higher than natural ones, it follows that Bentham does not favour the sacrifice of a few to the benefit of the many. Law professor [[Alan Dershowitz]] has quoted Bentham to argue that torture should sometimes be permitted.<ref name="Dershowitz2014" />

==== Criticisms ====
Utilitarianism was revised and expanded by Bentham's student [[John Stuart Mill]], who sharply criticised Bentham's view of human nature, which failed to recognise conscience as a human motive. Mill considered Bentham's view "to have done and to be doing very serious evil."<ref>[[John Stuart Mill|Mill, John Stuart]]. 1897. ''Early Essays of John Stuart Mill''. London. pp. 401–404.</ref> In Mill's hands, "Benthamism" became a major element in the [[classical liberalism|liberal]] conception of [[state policy]] objectives.

Bentham's critics have claimed that he undermined the foundation of a free society by rejecting [[Natural rights and legal rights|natural rights]].<ref name="Smith2012" /> Historian [[Gertrude Himmelfarb]] wrote "The principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number was as inimical to the idea of liberty as to the idea of rights."{{sfn|Himmelfarb|1968|p=77}}

Bentham's "hedonistic" theory (a term from [[J. J. C. Smart]]) is often criticised for lacking a principle of fairness embodied in a conception of [[justice]]. In ''Bentham and the Common Law Tradition'', Gerald J. Postema states: "No moral concept suffers more at Bentham's hand than the concept of justice. There is no sustained, mature analysis of the notion."{{sfn|Postema|1986|p=148}} Thus, some critics{{who|date=January 2013}} object, it would be acceptable to [[torture]] one person if this would produce an amount of happiness in other people outweighing the unhappiness of the tortured individual. However, as P. J. Kelly argued in ''Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law'', Bentham had a theory of justice that prevented such consequences.{{clarify|date=July 2021}}