Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legis

by Jeremy Bentham

Unlike some other reproductions of classic texts (1) We have not used OCR(Optical Character Recognition), as this leads to bad quality books with introduced typos. (2) In books where there are images such as portraits, maps, sketches etc We have endeavoured to keep the quality of these images, so they represent accurately the original artefact. Although occasionally there may be certain imperfections with these old texts, we feel they deserve to be made available for future generations to enjoy.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Law, Classics, History, Economics

340 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1789

About the author

In 1748, Jeremy Bentham was born in London. The great philosopher, utilitarian humanitarian and atheist began learning Latin at age four. He earned his B.A. from Oxford by age 15 or 16, and his M.A. at 18. His Rationale of Punishments and Rewards was published in 1775, followed by his groundbreaking utilitarian work, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Bentham propounded his principle of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." He worked for political, legal, prison and educational reform. Inheriting a large fortune from his father in 1792, Bentham was free to spend his remaining life promoting progressive causes. The renowned humanitarian was made a citizen of France by the National Assembly in Paris. In published and unpublished treatises, Bentham extensively critiqued religion, the catechism, the use of religious oaths and the bible. Using the pen-name Philip Beauchamp, he co-wrote a freethought treatise, Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind (1822). D. 1832.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_B...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/who

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jeremy_B...

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...

http://utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 3 out of 5]

دوستانِ گرانقدر، «جرمی بنتام»، فیلسوفِ انگلیسی، مکتبِ "فایده گرایی" را بنیاد نهاد، این کتاب که مهمترین اثرِ وی میباشد با عنوانِ "مقدمه ای بر اصول اخلاقیات و قانون گذاری" در سال 1879 منتشر شد و در آن میتوان به خوبی اندیشۀ آرمان خواهانۀ وی را مشاهده نمود
او در این کتاب، اصولِ "فایده گرایی" را شرح داده است که بر اساسِ این اصل: هنگامی عملی موردِ تأیید قرار میگیرد که بتواند بیشترین میزانِ سعادت و خوشبختی را ایجاد نماید... «بنتام» سعادت را اینگونه تعریف میکند که: سعادت یعنی حضورِ لذت و غیابِ درد و رنج
او فرمولی به نامِ ««حساب دیفرانسیل و انتگرالِ شادمانی»» ارائه کرده است که به کمکِ آن میتوان ارزشِ اصلیِ لذت ها و همچنین دردهایِ گوناگون را سنجید... «بنتام» در هنگامِ اندازه گیریِ میزانِ لذت و درد، به متغیرهایِ زمان - شدت - قطعیّت و عدمِ قطعیّت - نزدیکی و همچنین دوری، توجه بسیار داشته است... سپس استدلال کرده است که آنچه عمل را درست و موّجه میسازد، توانایی آن در افزودن به لذت و کاستن از درد و رنج است
نظریهٔ او را لذت گرایانه به حساب می آورند، چراکه وی معتقد است، فقط درد و لذت، مسائل و مواردِ ارزشمند هستند و این قانون را "اصلِ سودمندی: مینامد که سود را بطورِ مستقیم، ناشی از اعمال میداند
از دیدگاهِ «بنتام» اساسِ "فایده گرایی"، پیامدهایِ اعمال است... وی بیش از همه بر سعادتِ جامعه تأکیید میکند، و چون سعادتِ جامعه مجموعِ سعادتِ انسانهایی است که عضوِ آن هستند.. بنابراین "اصلِ سودمندی" تعیین میکند که: تعهد اخلاقی به اجرایِ مربوط به آن عمل است که آیا عملِ یادشده، میتواند بیشترین میزانِ سعادت را برایِ بالاترین تعدادِ جامعه، فراهم آورد و یا خیر؟
به عقیدهٔ «بنتام» کمیّتِ لذت، اعم از پیچیپگی و یا سادگی، مهمتر از کیفیّت میباشد... «بنتام» با قاطعیت اعتقاد دارد که طرحِ مسئله به صورتِ کمی، بهتر از طرح مسئله به بطور کیفی میباشد
او معتقد است که سیاست هایِ اجتماعی را میبایست بر مبنایِ رفاهِ عمومی کسانی که متأثر هستند سنجید و اینکه افرادِ جنایت کار باید به گونهٔ مؤثری مجازات شوند تا درسِ عبرتی برایِ دیگران نیز باشند. چراکه انسانها مزایایِ ارتکاب جرم را با درد و رنجی که هنگامِ مجازات نصیبِ آنها میگردد، مقایسه میکنند
--------------------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو برای شما خردگرایان مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»

[Chelsea Lawson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I recently heard of the divide between "splitters" and "lumpers" in academia. A "splitter" is an individual who prefers precise definitions and creates lots of categories and differentiation. A "lumper" is an individual who takes a gestalt view of a definition and assumes that differences are not as important as signature similarities.

Bentham is a classic splitter. This book is about how to judge an act from a moral and legislative perspective. As a utilitarian, Bentham believes we should judge acts on the amount of pleasure or benefit they generate compared to the amount of pain or loss. He spends the book getting extremely detailed and raising issues around how exactly we perform the calculations.

To start, there are seven variables that go into calculating pleasure and pain:
1. Its intensity.
2. Its duration.
3. Its certainty or uncertainty.
4. Its propinquity or remoteness.
5. Its fecundity.
6. Its purity.
7. Its extent; that is, the number of persons to whom it extends; or (in other words) who are affected by it.

Then there are about 50 different kinds of pleasure and pain. Then 30 different "circumstances" to take into account, such as the person's sex, age, and education, which may 'influence the actor's sensibility.' Then 16 "secondary circumstances," such as strength of mind or moral biases. Then 9 different classes of motives. Etc. Interesting to think about, especially if you are also a splitter :)

[Amirsaman]

Only read chapters 1, 2, 3, and 7, as the assigned reading for this course: Moral Foundations of Politics.

[James Violand · Rating 2 out of 5]

Any first year law student would be acquainted with Criminal Law – its theories, its punishments, its purpose. Bentham’s work was to systematize the English penal arena by creating check-lists of behavior and motivations, dispositions, and consequences to arrive at a disinterested conclusion at trial for what is best for society. Punishment for crime is punitive, not redemptive. We’ve become so alienated from the concept because the modern focus has been turned upon what is best to rehabilitate the perpetrator. Society is now condemned as the problem. Legislators and judges would benefit society by being acquainted with this book. That being said, this work soon is so tedious that it is a punishment for the reader. Every possible permutation of every act, motive, intent, harm, etc. is categorized, in order to promote Bentham’s idea. He pulverizes the dead horse.

[Clara Troltenier (Support Modest Behaviour) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had to read parts of this book for my Introduction to Political Thought class.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have completed this book. What did I think?

Well I think I have read better foundational justifications for the interpretation of utility. The moral and philosophical groundwork upon the metrics of which this system rest are somewhat shaky. There is a general indeterminism in regards to what gives people pleasure.

Disregarding this criticism, and various others within the book, his findings as regards the moral sanction as being related to the well being of a nation are clear: in order for his (at times needlessly) mathematical utilitarian system to be well defined and rigorously applied, the idea of probity or beneficence needs to operate.

There is an equation which essentially sums up this work as a whole:

a - b = c/d

a= Motivation to act
b= Standing tutelary motives
c= Strength of temptation
d= Situational tutelary motives

Where a is the unknown.

If you read this book and you didn't see that equation, maybe it's because you don't read enough economics, haha. I can tell you one thing for sure though, the system is not rigorous or defined enough for him to be making sweeping definite statements like that. This is how the work is: Bentham is a legislator. He seems keen on making sweeping dogmatic statements. Little references are made to other philosophers, although you can be certain he has read some Aristotle. I thought this was a good work, if perhaps a little lackluster in the exposition and execution. Like all mathematical economists though, his objective was to define a system for further findings to be discovered within. He also developed his system to assist other legislators in their proceedings. Regardless of the intention, his final book has left an indelible mark on the posterity of moral philosophy and will not be forgotten.

[Nandini Goel · Rating 5 out of 5]

**“Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation”** by **Jeremy Bentham**
**Review By Nandini Goel**
This Book provides a wide outlook of Bentham's teachings about Utilitarianism and his classification of pleasures and pains. Then Bentham also classifies mischief and offences. As we continue reading further Bentham discusses about its importance in Jurisprudence.

In the first part of the book, Bentham discusses about the principle of “Utility”. Utilitarianism has been Bentham’s most renowned theory. Utility is a property in any object whereby it tends to produce **benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness**. The principle of Utility approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.

Now how do you deduce that an action is accepted under the principle of utility or not? Keep the pleasures on one side & Keep the pains on another. Now sum up the pleasures and the pains. Check which side is more. If the sum of pleasures is more, then it was a balanced act, if less, then it was not a balanced one. Now this process is questionable to me as some time a corrupt mind or immoral person can take this concept to his advantage. Anyways this is a concept worth recognition.

The principle of utility has been reprimanded by two classes of people: moralists and religionists. These two classes of people have given priority to human values and morals. Here I would not keep my opinion about whose ideologies are better (Kant or Bentham), for I believe I am in no power to do that. **smile**

Then Bentham discusses about the four sanctions or the source of pain and pleasure. The four sanctions are physical, political, moral or unpopular and the religious sanction.
The circumstances that need to be taken into account while estimating the value of a pleasure or pain considered with reference to a single person are:
1) Its intensity
2) Its duration
3) Its certainty or uncertainty
4) Its propinquity or remoteness
5) Its fecundity (its chance to produce the same kind of feeling, either pleasure or pain)
6) Its purity (its chance of not producing the opposite kind of feeling, either pleasure or pain)

The circumstances that need to be taken into account while estimating the value of a pleasure or pain considered with reference to a community or a large set of people are the same as the above with one addition: “The Extent” or the number of people to whom it extends or (in other words) who were affected by it.

Bentham then discusses about the different kinds of Pleasure and Pains. There are two types of Pains and Pleasures: simple or complex. Let me enlist a few Simple Pleasures first those Bentham mentions in his work:

1. Pleasure of Sense: The Pleasure exhibited by the body and the senses come under this category. For example, the pleasure of the taste or palate, the pleasures of intoxication, pleasures of organ of smelling(nose), pleasures of the ear, pleasures of the touch, simple pleasures of the eye and so on.

2. Pleasures of wealth: These pleasures include the pleasures a man derive from the consciousness of possessing any article or articles.

3. Pleasures of Skill: These accompany the application of such particular instruments of enjoyment to their uses, as cannot be so applied without a greater or less share of difficulty.

4. Pleasures of amity: Or self-recommendation, derived when at good terms with someone, in a way to have the benefit of their spontaneous and gratuitous services.

5. Pleasures of Good Name: Can also be called, pleasures of good repute and pleasures of honor.

6. Pleasures of Power: Accompany the persuasion of a man’s being in a condition to dispose people.

7. Pleasures of Piety: The belief of a man’s being in the acquisition or in possession of the good-will of the Supreme Being. Usually seen in case of staunch religious believers.

And a few more. The same way are the simple pains such as Pains of Privation (which includes pain of desire, disappointment and regret), Pains of the Senses (opposite of Pleasure of the senses), Pains of awkwardness, Pains of enmity, Pains of an ill name (opposite of Pains of Good Name),and Pains of piety and so on.

Pleasures and Pain are either Self-Regarding: regarding the same person, or Extra-Regarding: regarding someone else.

Then Bentham discusses **The Consequences of a Mischievous Act**. There are two consequences of a mischievous act: primary and secondary. The primary consequences of a mischievous act include original consequences and derivative consequences. The derivative consequences of a mischievous act include “Alarm” or “Danger”. Let me explain these consequences further.

**The Original Consequences** are inflicted on the main sufferer of the mischievous act, on whom the pain was supposed to be rendered. The derivative consequences are inflicted on the people connected directly to the sufferer.

Now coming to the **Secondary Consequences**: the alarm is the feeling of alertness generated in the minds of the listeners of the story of the suffering. Danger is the unsafe environment created after a mischievous act.

To lessen the danger in a surrounding, strict laws must be enforced so that no further mischievous act of the same kind is committed in future.To mark Deterrence.

To judge an act few things must be kept in mind. They are as follows:
1. The Act Itself
2. The Circumstances
3. The intentional
4. The Consciousness
5. The Motives
6. The Disposition

Bentham discusses that nothing is right or wrong as what is right today, might be wrong tomorrow. (Reminds of some factions of Indian National Congress during Pre-Independence Era ,voiced same words. **smile** ), It depends on the disposition of a person which is derived from the motives of certain acts.
Then Bentham discusses about the division of offences into certain classes. They are as follows:
1. Private Offence: Offences those are detrimental, for an assignable person other than the offender. Private Offences can be further divided into sub-classes which are: a) Offences against persons b) Offences against property c) Offences against Condition d) Offences against Person and Property e) Offences against person and reputation

2. Semi-Public Offences: These offences are those involving a part of the community. These offences are better known as offence against neighbourhood or offence against a certain class of people in the society.

3. Self-Regarding Offences: These offences are detrimental to the offender himself in the first instance.

4. Public Offences: These offences are detrimental to an infinite number of unassignable people in the society. These include the following offences: a) Offences against Justice b) Offences against external security c) Offences against the preventive branch of Police d) Offence against the positive increase of national felicity e) Offences against the public force f) Offences against the public wealth g) Offences against the national security h) Offences against sovereignty i) Offences against religion

5. Multiform Offences: These can be divided into two: offences from falsehood and offences against trust. These also have many sub classes.

**Bentham discusses that the punishment of an offence should over-weigh the profit of the offence**. Punishment he describes as the loss of pleasure. Bentham discusses that there are a few instances where the judiciary should try to reduce the punishment. These he describe as the cases which unmeet the punishment.

He describes punishment also as evil as the main goal of the government is the happiness of the people. So in the following case must be excluded from punishment.

Firstly, Cases in which punishment is groundless or where the act was not being mischievous upon the whole. Secondly, cases in which punishment is inefficacious or where it cannot act as so prevent the mischief. Third, Cases in which punishment is unprofitable or too expensive and Lastly, where punishment is needless.

He also discusses that Judges should give punishment for the greater offence, where there are two offences so that in future, the greater offences of the two is less preferred and happens less often than the offence with lesser intensity.

At the end, Jeremy Bentham discusses about Jurisprudence and how a judiciary should function. It was indeed an interesting book with a new outlook for me. One of the finest piece of understanding, I have read hitherto.

I am sure why this book was considered importtant while understanding subject like Jurisprudence. **smile**

Regards
Nandini Goel

Thank You to Prof Ranbir Singh for the Introduction

[Samuel Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bentham is my favourite philosopher. His work on modern utilitarianism is orgasmic. He is an unproblematic king who was way ahead of his time - equal rights, homosexuality decriminalisation, separation of church/state, anti-death penalty and fervent abolitionist. Wow. Love this man.

[Anna Grace Holloway · Rating 4 out of 5]

I appreciate and respect that he committed so hard to utilitarianism. He created and defended a complete ethical framework, which is to be admired. Unfortunately, he’s plain wrong.

[Dakota · Rating 3 out of 5]

Can’t say I’m a utilitarian in any respect, nor do I find any merit in act/rule utilitarianism. Chapter 4 on calculating utility shows where the disconnect lies for me. Utility calculus is either trivial or hopeless. On another note though, Jeremy Bentham’s body has been turned into a wax figure and is being preserved at UCL.

[Bookshark · Rating 2 out of 5]

I honestly don't know why this book still gets read these days. Either Bentham is simply a moron who's incapable of grasping nuance, or he's unpersuasively attempting to employ a Manichean argumentative strategy which ends up making him appear indistinguishable from such a moron. Although I disagree with utilitarianism in general, I readily concede that there are intelligent utilitarians who make persuasive arguments in favor of their position (for instance, Peter Singer, and J. S. Mill to the extent that he really counts as a utilitarian). Bentham, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be able to grasp what his opponents believe they're saying from their own point of view (or, again, he's strategically choosing to ignore the meaning they're attempting to express). For instance, has anyone ever actually defended the principle of sympathy and antipathy as a general theory of morals? The closest thing that I can come up with is the Divine Right of Kings, which is a political theory of sovereignty not a general theory of morals and which you would have to significantly distort to reduce it to mere sympathy and antipathy. And of course, he never responds to potential criticisms of his view (for instance, if an intuitionist did want to take up the case of defending the silly sympathy/antipathy principle, they could point out to Bentham that he has no basis other than his arbitrary feelings of approval for believing that moral theory should be based on reasoning and principles rather than feelings). Moreover, he seems ignorant of history; surely he can't believe what he's saying when he claims that no religious ascetic has ever prescribed asceticism for others or imposed it on them when history is replete with examples (especially in pre-modern Christianity but in plenty of other contexts as well). He gets an extra star for the part of the book about prisons because it has been used by reformers to improve people's material conditions, but even that is pretty generous I think. Save your time, read something else.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE FOUNDER OF UTILITARIANISM LOOKS AT POLITICS

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was an English philosopher, jurist, and social reformer, who is the founder of Utilitarianism.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1780 book, “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… In words a man may pretend to abjure 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 rear the fabric of felicity by the hands of reason and of law.” (Pg. i)

He explains, “By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness… [or] to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered: if that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the community: if a particular individual, then the happiness of that individual.” (Pg. ii)

He outlines, “There are two classes of men… by whom the principle of asceticism appears to have been embraced: the one a set of moralists, the other a set of religionists… The religious party, however, appear to have carried it farther than the philosophical: they have acted more consistently and less wisely. The philosophical party have scarcely gone farther then to reprobate pleasure: the religious party have frequently gone so far as to make it a matter of merit and of duty to court pain. The philosophical party have hardly gone farther than making pain a matter of indifference… From these two sources have flowed the doctrines from which the sentiments of the bulk of mankind have all along received a tincture of this principle: some from the philosophical, some from the religious, some from both.” (Pg. viii-ix)

He states, “There are four distinguishable sources from which pleasure and pain are in use to flow: considered separately they may be termed the PHYSICAL, the POLITICAL, the MORAL and the RELIGIOUS: and inasmuch as the pleasures and pains belonging to each of them are capable of giving a binding force to any law or rule of conduct, they may all of them [be] termed ‘sanctions.’” (Pg. xvii)

He asks, “Does the political sanction exert an influence over the conduct of mankind? The moral, the religious sanctions do so too. In every inch of his career are the operations of the political magistrate liable to be aided or impeded by these two foreign powers: who, one or other of them, or both, are sure to be either his rivals or his allies. Does it happen to him to leave them out in his calculations? He will be sure almost to find himself mistaken in the result.” (Pg. xx)

He states, “To a person considered by himself, the value of a pleasure or pain considered by ITSELF, will be greater or less, according to the four following circumstances: 1. Its intensity. 2. Its duration. 3. Its certainty or uncertainty. 4. Its propinquity or remoteness… These are the circumstances which are to be considered in estimating a pleasure or a pain considered each of them by itself.” (Pg. xxi)

He continues, “To a NUMBER of persons, with reference to each of whom to the value of a pleasure or a pain is considered, it will be greater or less according to seven circumstances… 5. Its fecundity. 6. Its purity… 7. Its extent… Sum up all the values of all the PLEASURES on the one side, and those of all the pains on the other. The balance, if it be on the side of pleasure, will give the GOOD tendency of the act upon the whole, with respect to the interest of that INDIVIDUAL person; if on the side of pain, the bad tendency of it upon the whole… It is not to be expected that this process should be strictly pursued previously to every moral judgment, or to every legislative or judicial operation. It may, however, be always kept in view…” (Pg. xxii-xxiii)

He summarizes, “The general tendency of an act is more or less pernicious, according to the sum total of its consequences: that is, according to the difference between the sum of such as are good, and the sum of such as are evil… It is also to be observed, that into the account of the consequences of the act, are to be taken not such only as might have ensued, were intention out of the question, but such also depend upon the connexion there may be between these first-mentioned consequences and the intention. The connexion there is between the intention and certain consequences is… a means or producing other consequences. In this lies the difference between rational agency and irrational.” (Pg. lvii)

He observes, “If any sort of motive then is either good or bad on the score of its effects, this is the case only on individual occasions, and with individual motives; and this is the case with one sort of motive as well as with another. If any sort of motive then can, in consideration of its effects, be termed with any propriety a bad one, it can only be with reference to the balance of all the effects it may have had of both kinds within a given period, that is, or its most usual tendency.” (Pg. xcix)

He again outlines, “Public offenses may be distributed under eleven divisions. 1. Offenses against external security. 2. Offenses against justice. 3, Offenses against the preventive branch of the police. 4. Offenses against the public force. 5. Offenses against the positive increase of the national felicity. 6. Offenses against the public wealth. 7. Offenses against population. 8. Offenses against the national wealth. 9. Offenses against the sovereignty. 10. Offenses against religion. 11. Offenses against the national interest in general.” (Pg. clxxxiv) Later, he adds, “In this deduction, it may be asked, what place is left for religion?... To diminish… or misapply the influence of religion, is pro tanto to diminish or misapply what power the state has of combating with effect any of the before-enumerated kinds of offenses; that is, all kinds of offenses whatsoever. Acts that appear to have this tendency may be styled ‘offenses against religion.’ Of these then may be composed the tenth division of the class of offenses against the state.” (Pg. clxxxix)

He summarizes, “Ethics at large may be defined, the art of directing men’s actions to the production of the greatest possible quantity of happiness, on the part of those whose interest in in view… What then are the actions which it can be in a man’s power to direct? They must either be his own actions, or those of other agents. Ethics… may be styled the ‘art of self-government,’ or private ethics.” (Pg. cclxiii)

He continues, “As to ethics in general, a man’s happiness will depend, in the first place, upon such parts of his behavior as none but himself are interested in; in the next place, upon such parts of it as may affect the happiness of those about him. In as far as his happiness depends upon the first-mentioned part of his behavior, it is said to depend upon his duty to himself. Ethics, then, in as far as it is the art of directing a man’s actions in this respect, may be termed the art of discharging one’s duty to one’s self: and the quality which a man manifests by the discharge of this branch of duty… is that of PRUDENCE… Ethics then, in as far as it is the art of directing a man’s actions in this respect, may be termed the art of discharging one’s duty to one’s neighbor. Now the happiness of one’s neighbor may be consulted in two ways: 1. In a negative way, by forbearing to diminish it. 2. In a positive way, by studying to increase it. A man’s duty to his neighbor is accordingly partly negative and partly positive: to discharge the negative branch of it, is PROBITY: the discharge the positive branch, BENEFICENCE.” (Pg. cclxiv)

AND, in Chap. XVII, IV, footnote 1, his famous quote: "The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they REASON? Nor, Can they TALK? but, Can they SUFFER?"

This book will be “must reading” for serious students of philosophy.

[Concerto Piano · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jeremy Bentham's An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation is a seminal text that established the foundation of utilitarian ethics and profoundly influenced legal and moral philosophy. While the work is celebrated for its innovative ideas and cultural significance, it also invites deep philosophical scrutiny.


Bentham’s central contribution is his "principle of utility," which evaluates actions based on their tendency to promote happiness or prevent pain. This principle challenged the entrenched moral doctrines of his time, including deontological and divine-command ethics. By grounding morality in tangible human experiences—pleasure and pain—Bentham democratized ethical discourse, making it accessible and relevant to the emerging egalitarian spirit of the Enlightenment.

The quantification of utility also marked a significant intellectual advance. Bentham’s "felicific calculus," a systematic attempt to measure and compare pleasures and pains, exemplifies the Enlightenment’s fascination with scientific precision and rational analysis. His approach provided a framework for creating laws and policies that aimed to maximize collective well-being, laying the groundwork for modern welfare economics and public policy.

Bentham’s rejection of natural rights in favor of legal rights rooted in utility is another strength. He dismissed abstract, metaphysical notions of justice in favor of a pragmatic, results-oriented approach to governance. This pragmatic turn aligned with broader cultural movements toward empirical inquiry and away from theological dogmatism, making his ideas instrumental in advancing reforms in areas such as labor laws, prison systems, and public health.

Despite its groundbreaking aspects, Bentham’s utilitarianism has been criticized for oversimplifying the complexities of human experience. His reduction of morality to a calculus of pleasure and pain risks ignoring the qualitative differences between various forms of happiness. For example, intellectual or moral pleasures may be inherently more valuable than physical pleasures, a distinction that John Stuart Mill later attempted to address in his refinement of utilitarian theory.

Furthermore, Bentham's emphasis on utility as the sole criterion for morality has been accused of neglecting other ethical considerations, such as justice, rights, and personal integrity. His framework, while systematic, struggles to account for situations where maximizing utility might lead to morally questionable outcomes, such as sacrificing the rights of a minority to benefit the majority.

Bentham’s utilitarianism is rooted in a hedonistic understanding of human nature, which posits that pleasure and pain are the ultimate determinants of value. While this view provides a clear and measurable basis for moral evaluation, it raises profound philosophical questions. Is pleasure truly the ultimate good? Critics argue that Bentham’s hedonism reduces the richness of human life to mere sensations, overlooking higher ideals such as virtue, creativity, and spiritual fulfillment.

Additionally, Bentham’s utilitarian calculus assumes that pleasures and pains can be quantified and compared. This assumption has been challenged for its impracticality and philosophical naivety. Human experiences are often subjective and context-dependent, making them resistant to precise measurement. Moreover, the aggregation of individual utilities into a collective measure raises ethical dilemmas about the comparability of individual well-being.

Culturally, Bentham’s work reflects the Enlightenment’s optimism about reason and progress. His belief that morality and legislation could be grounded in objective principles aligns with the era’s broader intellectual aspirations. However, this optimism can also be seen as a limitation. Bentham’s utilitarianism assumes a level of rationality and predictability in human behavior that may not align with the complexities of human psychology and social dynamics.

Furthermore, his focus on the "greatest happiness for the greatest number" can lead to a form of moral collectivism that undermines individual autonomy. Critics from deontological and existentialist traditions have argued that this collectivist orientation risks treating individuals as means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves.

One of the most significant philosophical weaknesses of Bentham’s framework is its dismissal of moral intuition and intrinsic values. By reducing morality to a calculation of outcomes, Bentham disregards the role of moral emotions, such as compassion and empathy, in ethical decision-making. This omission leaves his theory ill-equipped to address deeply personal and relational aspects of morality, such as loyalty, love, and respect.

Bentham’s utilitarianism also struggles with the concept of justice. In cases where maximizing utility requires violating principles of fairness or equality, his framework offers no clear resolution. For instance, redistributing resources in a way that benefits the majority but severely harms a minority may maximize utility but would conflict with widely held notions of justice. This tension highlights the ethical limits of utilitarianism as a comprehensive moral theory.


Despite its shortcomings, Bentham’s work is remarkable for its practical orientation. His insistence on linking morality to legislation demonstrates a commitment to applying ethical principles in real-world contexts. However, the complexity of human societies often defies the straightforward application of utilitarian calculus, requiring additional moral and philosophical frameworks to address nuanced ethical dilemmas.

[Jonny Berglind · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book that changed the way we view law and morality.

[Coral · Rating 2 out of 5]

I´ve never felt so opposed to a book -which I normally enjoy- yet somehow each line I read contributed to the accumulation of acid that was filling my stomach. I could only see as I went through the text the misinterpretation of opposition to materialism/the mundane/vice, how big or short the ideology is irrelevant but completely different to "denial of pleasure" and what is pleasure but a single word defined by each individual´s understanding of what life should be. Consequently isn´t he shrinking the complexity and the beauty that comes with it as well as judging the concept of some to the source of happiness, mainly by those who might call it wholeness?

I would´ve expected the book to be an argumentative reading to question and better understand utilitarianism, exploiting its weakest points to strengthen the philosophy that if not exclusive, complementary to what could be, instead of what seemed to me like a divine proclamation of what is.

[Hank · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found it appealing that Bentham developed the concept of utilitarianism while attempting to lay out a science of law. Kind of like the way Newton had invented calculus in order to explain his discoveries in the science of physics. It’s a fundamental error though to think law can be dealt with as a science, I guess I should have realized.

And though utilitarianism is laid out briefly Ian’s referred to from time to time, the bulk of the text consists of classifications of various elements of crime, tort and punishment in language that can no longer be considered usefully descriptive due to the intervening changes in our use of the English language.

So I cannot recommend that anyone take the time to read this. Even if the author deserves credit for origination of the concept. Utilitarianism is certainly a useful framework for some of life’s dilemmas even if it may fall short as an overall foundation for an ethical life.

[Leonardo]

"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: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it. In words a man may pretend to abjure their empire: but in reality he will remain subject to it all the while."

[E. · Rating 2 out of 5]

The theory has deep flaws because of a naïve understanding of human psychology and a complete obtuseness to some topics (he actually writes that no society ever created a plan to oppress and plunder). But . . .

What he was trying to do in his time was so liberative and so ahead of its time. When teaching him I often write on the board a list of views he held and how they'd locate him on the progressive left in 21st century America, much less 18th century Britain.

His basic intention was spot on--let's clear away all the clutter and free people up to live happy lives.

[Oliver · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book, with some sections that will hopefully be helpful when writing my thesis next year. I have no doubt I'll be coming back to this over the next few months. It's written in a very easily readable manner, though I do understand what past reviewers have meant when they refer to Bentham as a 'splitter'. He made sure to provide very intricate explanations of every aspect of legislation he felt necessary to come into force, which does make this book very wordy at points.

All in all, a decent read, and very informative on the principle of utilitarianism.

[Jacob Bowden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bentham's unique and objective considerations, paired with his progressive views regarding nonhumans and interests, are established in this influential, although (self-admittedly) painful to read piece.

Less can be said regarding his views on sex and slavery, and of taste pleasure and pain, but he (although fallaciously) grounds these upon the benefit of the individuals who he is harming with these views, which is a step in the right direction, and still comparatively tame compared to his contemporaries. All it takes is the acceptance of his principles, and rejection of certain premises (e.g. the inferior sensibilities of the female sex), and this "introduction" can be used to support activism and social change.

His scrutiny and analysis is tiring but admirable and, although I failed to recall the bulk of definitions and categorisations laid out, I still benefitted from his detailed explanations of each, in contextualising his normative meta-ethical and legislative theory.

Although I differ in my views from him, this was a necessary read in substantiating my claimed Utilitarianism, as it contains its conception, and some facets that I had not yet considered.

[swapnil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basic idea - Moral compass should be tuned to guide for maximum happiness for the greatest number. It's like a constitution for utilitarian ethics. Great read if you want someone to really explain and justify why they think something is right or wrong across (almost) all aspects of life. In the end, everything really just boils down to pleasure and pain and then scaling that to all interactions in society.

[Daniel Hageman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit dense as suspected, hence the time I spent working through it. Nevertheless, the foundations laid out here, in depth, provide a massive resource for so many critical questions surrounding utilitarianism, in both practice and theory. The distinction laid out between motivation and intention was just one fascinating example.

[João Pereira · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have a significant contempt for utilitarianism as an ethical concept especially for Bentham's strand of utilitarianism.

It reveals an absolute lack of understanding of the human condition and its too abstract, reductionist, difficult to measure and its consequentialist extremes can lead to very morally questionable conclusions.

[Sai Preetham · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is basically about the Principle of utility (greater Pleasure than pain) when applied to actions of individual and government. He applied his Principle of Utility to Ethics, Law, Social Actions and so on to calculate their action whether moral or not.

['Special' Ed Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Remarkably Complete

As an attempt to create a unified theory of law by cataloging the causes of, needs for, and nature of laws in society this work is quite successful.

[Kriti · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a drag. All this arguments were highly derivative, deterministic, and consequentialist. But there are certain merits to his ideas and the system of utility.

[Khaled]

good

[Niyousha · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5

[victor ochoa · Rating 1 out of 5]

A summary will do

Read a modern summary. I do NOT recommend reading the original version. Understanding Utilitarian concepts does not require a reading of this original work.

[Tony · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was hard work. I’m on a Philosophy kick at the moment and I think the age of this book worked against it.