Jeremy Bentham - Concept of Utilitarianism - Book Report/Review Example

The measure of right and wrong, according to Jeremy Bentham, can be understood through the principle of utility which advocates "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Although Bentham brought forth his controversial assertion more than two hundred years ago, contemporary scholars continue to deconstruct utilitarian ideals, while critics of the theory argue that the utilitarian principles are inconsistent with human rights. Opponents of the principle declare that utilitarians do not acknowledge the rights of individuals or put forth ideologies that could safeguard the rights of the minority as the aforementioned principles centre mainly on the promotion of the happiness of the 'greatest number.' In determining if the criticisms hurled against the principles of utility are valid, it is essential to examine the concept of utilitarianism and determine if it is incompatible with the existing human rights legislations or the application of these laws. In order to understand Bentham's concept of right and wrong, a close examination of the context of which it was declared, should be put into consideration. It should be remembered that in Bentham's previous works, he had been critical of the concept and the proposed theories of natural rights which he dismissed as a 'rhetorical nonsense'1, mainly based on "imaginary laws...fancied and invented by poets and dealers of moral and intellectual poisons".2 For Bentham, these abstractions cannot replace specific legislations. Furthermore, he shows scepticism on the existence of universal absolutes - the preliminary foundation of human right laws - as there are rarely absolutes in multicultural and diverse societies. Rights, according to Bentham, are afforded by the state, instituted by an established government3 to which an individual belongs; endowing human beings with natural rights is akin to granting them imaginary rights. He argues that right and law "are correlative terms" whereas natural rights exist not only in the absence of law "but against the law". 4 Hence, the claim that natural rights gave rise to absolute rights undermines the force of law. Moreover, Bentham's critics tend to reduce the utilitarian argument into its simple form - one that only emphasizes on 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number.' What is overlooked in Bentham's argument is his inclusion of the 5measurement of the value of pleasures and pain by utilising the 'felicific calculus.' 6This calculation takes into account the 'sum total of pleasure and pain' which results from a particular action. This implies that if a certain act, causing the pain of an individual, of greater quantity than quantity of happiness of a greater number, this particular action should be deemed immoral and wrong. Oppositions to the concept point to the fact that utilitarianism excludes minorities and individuals as for instance, 7Frey asserts that everyone is within the scope of utilitarian 'sacrifice.' Since the principle of utility purports for the greatest happiness, minorities and individuals shoulder the burden of the maximisation of this happiness. Bedau suggests that utilitarians cannot protect individuals as it puts more emphasis on bestowing privileges rather than focus on the advancement of human dignity and autonomy. 8 The utilitarian view of the individual as part of an aggregate rather than as separate entity undermines individuality and freedom and in turn results to the decrement of their happiness. Mills, however, argued that in maximising utility, freedom of expression is essential9 while other proponents of utilitarianism tried to reconcile human rights and the principles of utility 10 by arguing that human rights are moral values that society must adhere to in order to achieve the greatest happiness. Freeden, for instance, declare that a more controlled utilitarian values are perfectly consistent with human rights11 while others scholars opined that human rights needs to be quantified in order for us to see clearly if it is consistent with the concept of utility.12 However, in the previous and present centuries, we have witnessed the development of humanitarian laws and international human rights legislations which have been applied with the force of law in countries signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although the application of these laws is not maximised to a full degree, there have been apparent improvements in human rights practice even in the less economically powerful states. We also witnessed the transformation of the American Declaration, the concept Bentham strongly disparaged, which has spawned into specific laws in various democratic institutions - laws which for Bentham are the major fundamentals of rights13. The concept of equal rights proliferated across the globe, the death penalty abolished in majority of European countries; nations and states have advocated the protection of women and the rights of the child. International humanitarian laws continue to aim for the eradication poverty as various established governments vowed to return to their minority and ethnic groups their ancestral domain. Countries declared commitment to the protection of economic, social and cultural rights and in almost every democratic institution all over the world, the recognition and respect to these rights are backed by the full force of the law.14 Critics see the strengthening of human rights law as a refutation against the utilitarian principles brought forth by Bentham. Nevertheless, it is also important to note that the human rights law conforms to the principles of utility through its aim to alleviate pain and suffering and promote happiness. Habibi (2007) argues that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is 15concordant with the concept of advancing happiness as in the past decades, countries which adhere to the principles of the Declaration stepped up efforts to curb governmental abuse of power, improve restorative justice and eradicate torture and slavery and other abuses which heighten pain. In utilitarian calculus, these translate as morally good actions. Countries which adhere to the Declaration have endeavoured to encourage the pursuit of happiness and those which refuse to do so are faced with international sanctions or pressure from the international community. Habibi adds that even Bentham himself would acknowledge the utility, currently termed as 'human rights' as it strives to produce the 'greatest happiness of the greatest number.' Moreover, during the last half of the previous century, the concept of human rights has evolved from the natural notion of rights towards a more liberal approach. In its current definition, rights can be deemed 'protection or entitlements' that a person holds against another person, his society, country, community.16 This is consistent with Bentham's view that rights are conferred by the states as a form of an entitlement. On the other hand, an individual bestowed with these rights has a corresponding duty to the conferrer of his rights. Dworkin compares this to a shield an individual utilises to protect himself from the interests of the aggregate.17 Habibi adds that rights are significant in that it provides security from the painful effects of utilitarian policies which mainly uphold the interests of the greatest number of the population. Hence, it is safe to assume that Bentham did not overlook the rights of the minority through his introduction of the felicific calculations. Moreover, we should remember that Bentham did not directly oppose the conferring of rights to individuals or refute the claim that human beings are bestowed reason and dignity. Bentham strongly opposed the idea that rights emanate from natural laws and nature itself. The purpose of this is to emphasise the experiences of happiness and pain of a utilitarian individual who is guided by reason to create, analyse and institute laws that conform to the realities of human life. It is significant to delineate these occurrences of pleasure and pain as they constitute a collective experience of a political aggregate. These experiences usually form the concept of what is pleasurable and what is not which consequently become the foundations of our laws. The abridgement of the freedom of an individual or group, for instance, or the violation of the rights of a human being creates much suffering that such abuses should be eradicated through legislations. The abuse of empires, colonial masters and governments in the past, experienced by the greater number of population, has taught individuals that these kinds of injustices must be avoided. Human rights violations pose threats to society as a whole which hinder the achievement of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. In order to understand these clearly, a closer scrutiny of the fundamentals of human rights and its real life applications must be put forth. Let us consider, for instance, the endowment of rights of minority cultures and its implications on the principles of utility. Ethnic minorities in democratic countries and even in emerging economies have sought for the reclamation of their ancestral domains. In the Philippines, these claims resulted to violence and conflict not just between the government and the ethnic minorities but also between the minorities and the mainstream population. The encroachment of the once to be Muslim territory by Christians in Southern Philippines created a protracted violent struggles between the Christian population and the Islamic ethnic groups who had tried to claim their land for many decades. With the affirmation and inclusion of the Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization in the Philippine Constitution which set the policy for recognizing the rights of indigenous minorities to enjoy to the fullest extent their rights of ownership over their ancestral lands, settlements have been reached; both groups have signed temporary peace accords and have started negotiations with the government.18 Other ethnic minorities in the country have filed their claims to the courts invoking the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to regain their ancestral possessions. The courts in the Philippines made history when it made the first ruling on ancestral domain reclamation, awarding to the ethnic minorities their rights for ancestral domain through the courts utilisation of international human rights laws. Astrid Tuminez's special report on ancestral domain claims all over the world proposes that in order to end civil strife, minorities should be integrated as full citizens but should be afforded proper respects of their rights of abode. Her research shows that the exclusion of Catholic minority in Northern Ireland has resulted to prolonged violence. She observes that minority groups are often willing to resort to violence in order to achieve control of their resources as observed in the Tamil population in Sri Lanka, the landowners of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea, the Maoris of New Zealand and even the Native Americans.19 Tuminez suggests that in order to achieve lasting peace, "genuine devolution of political and economic power to redress minority disenfranchisement" should be practiced. 20The implication of this to the utility principle is massive as this shows that if the rights of the minorities are not observed, there are adverse repercussions to the security and happiness of the majority. Long lasting peace, a measurement of the greatest happiness, cannot be fully attained amidst intermittent eruptions of civil war that threaten the lives of the both the majority and the minority groups. We have seen this ensued in Northern Ireland, South Africa and other nation states rife with civil unrest. Hence, conflict such as this does not produce the greatest happiness to the greatest number. The utilitarian benefits essentially coincide with the development of individual and minority rights and thus show consistency with human rights ideals yet does not remain to be merely ideal but codified into laws. We have witnessed this with the American Declaration which afforded individuals inalienable rights yet took a century more to outlaw slavery, segregation and racism as it was not able to carry out the Declaration's pronouncements into actual laws. Until recently, some US states practice death penalty. It is safe to assume therefore, that utilitarianism is consistent with the principles of human rights. With the unwavering focus on humanity and its ills, Bentham's legacy was to relate these issues to law and legislation - two fields which he became renowned for. His utilitarian ideals may have dwindling adherents, yet they effected and inspired transformations in our legal and moral ideals and subsequently affected the institutionalisation of human rights law. Two hundred years after he put forth his principles of utility, the idea of natural laws, the concept he abhorred, has began to disappear. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights spoke more of the promotion of dignity - the same goals Bentham adhered to rather than the natural laws. His depiction of an autonomous entity and the individual person as the basis and the measurement of law had become the source of human rights ideals. Unlike the natural laws which are cemented on idealism, utilitarianism is founded on robust logic and reasoning as it seeks for the institutionalisation and proper legislation of rights. Without these codifications of legislations, human rights would remain elusive. BIBLIOGRAPHY BEDAU, Hugo Adam. (2000). Anarchical Fallacies: Bentham's Attack on Human Rights', (2000) 22 Human Rights Quarterly 261. BENTHAM, Jeremy. (1776) Letter to John Lind, dated September 2[] 1776. In The Correspondenceof Jeremy Bentham, Volume I: 1752-76, Timothy L.S. Sprigge (ed.) (1968) (London: Athlone Press), pp. 500 BENTHAM, Jeremy. (1795) Supply without Burthen or Escheat Vice Taxation. In Jeremy Bentham's Economic Writings, vol. I., W. Stark (ed.) (1952) (London: George Allen & Unwin). Pp. 334-335 BENTHAM, Jeremy. (1843) Anarchical fallacies. In The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. II, JohnBowring (ed.) (Edinburgh, W. Tait), p. 501. BRANDT, R.B. (1992). Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992, p.197. DWORKIN, Ronald. (1978) Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.: xi; 2006: 34-35). FRANKEL, M. E. (1999). Natural Rights, Equality and all that." New Leader 82, no. 00286044 : 1-3. FREEDEN, M. (1991). Rights, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp.83-100. FREY, Raymond Gillespie. (1984). Utility and rights. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Pr.p.9. GIBBARD, A. (1984). Utilitarianism and Human Rights", in Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr., and Jeffrey Paul (eds.), Human Rights, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984, pp.92-102. HABIBI, D. A. (2007). Human Rights and Politicized Human Rights: A Utilitarian Critique. Journal of Human Rights 6:3-45, no. 10 (34): 2007. LYONS, D. (1984). Utility and Rights in Jeremy Waldron (ed.) Theories of Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.110-136. MAUTNER, T. (2007). The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy ed. Thomas MautnerISBN 0-14-051250-0 QUINCY, H. Keith. (1980).The Higher Pleasures and Their Quantification," Polity 12 (Spring 458, 460-61, 479) TUMINEZ, A. S. (2005). Ancestral Domain in Comparative Perspective." United States Institute of Peace: Special Report 151, no. 12 (14): Read More