The Shadow of Great Britain

76: Chapter 37: Bentham’s Revelation 76: Chapter 37: Bentham’s Revelation In the lecture hall, Bentham and Arthur sat down side by side, one on the left and the other on the right.

Bentham glanced at Arthur’s heavy dark circles and shook his head with a smile, “You don’t seem to be in good shape.”

Arthur smiled, “Perhaps.

I still remember our discussion about the deontological principles advocated by Kant and your advocated consequentialist principles.

The deontological ethics advocated by Kant believe that the right or wrong of an action, whether it should be done or not, does not depend on its consequences, but on whether the action itself adheres to moral standards.

Whereas your advocated consequentialism believes that the right or wrong of an action, whether it should be done or not, ultimately depends on the consequences the action has brought or might bring, what impact it has produced, and how it has changed the surrounding world.”

Bentham asked, “So has your view changed now?”

Arthur first nodded, but quickly shook his head, “It has changed, but it hasn’t.

I think Kant makes sense, but I think you make sense too.

That’s why you think I don’t look so good right now.”

Bentham, leaning on his cane, looked up at the dome of the lecture hall, “Let me guess, you are a policeman now.

So, have you encountered some complicated cases?

Don’t know how to deal with the criminals?

Or, are you having trouble understanding and agreeing with some of the laws that are being enforced?”

Arthur nodded, “You really are a remarkable sage, you guessed right.

I want to hang a bunch of people, but according to current law, they may not deserve to die.”

Bentham shook his head, “I’m not any sage, I’m just a utilitarian, hoping to solve social problems.

As I’ve told you before, utilitarianism is not bad.

The difference between Kant’s and my views mainly lies in two aspects.

Kant believes that humans are rational, so the moral beliefs they adopt are also rational.

But when it comes to implementation, he uses an empathetic method.

He believes that since humans are rational, then their actions, if they conform to moral standards, are not wrong.

The difference between him and I lies in that I believe humans are sensuous, and human behavior is motivated entirely by pleasure and pain.

Humans are completely at the mercy of two masters—pain and pleasure.

These dictate what we ought to do, and decide what we will do.

Standards of right and wrong, and cause and effect, are all up to them.

Everything we think, say, or do is governed by them.

I believe humans are sensuous, yet in practice, I approach from a rational perspective.

There is no qualitative difference between pleasure and pain, only a quantitative one.

So, the principle of utilitarianism is to maximally increase the total quantity of happiness and well-being of all mankind, diminish the total amount of pain, and ultimately make the total amount of happiness far exceed that of pain.”

Arthur asked, “The theory always sounds great, but you must know that in practice, whether it’s Kant’s theory or yours, there are some problems.”

“Of course,” Bentham laughed heartily, “Isn’t the trolley problem with choosing between killing one person or five just the kind of dilemma that perplexed me?”

Arthur asked, “Do you have an answer now?”

Bentham mimicked Arthur’s earlier gesture, first nodding then shaking his head, “I do, but I also don’t.”

“How so?”

Bentham said, “Because whether from Kant’s perspective or from mine, pulling the trolley lever to kill is wrong.

Even standing on the ground of utilitarianism, this is not a simple math problem of choosing one or five.

You should have read my book, where I mentioned the four sources and constraints of human pleasure and pain, namely natural constraints, political constraints, moral constraints, and religious constraints.

Only by considering from the perspective of political constraints can we conclude that five is greater than one, thus choosing to kill one person instead of five.

But killing, whether from a natural, moral, or religious perspective, whether one or five, is fundamentally the same—killing is killing; there is no difference.

When the public knows that someone is forced to choose between killing one and killing five, they will not feel happier because the person chose to kill one, nor will they be sadder because the lever was not pulled and five people were killed by the train.

The pain the public feels from killing five people and from killing one person is actually the same.

Those who treat it as a simple math problem are just intentionally muddying the waters to make these social issues seem deeper.

Instead of fixating on the question of killing with a train, it’s better to consider why someone is tied to the tracks in the first place.

And make legislative amendments to minimize or even eliminate such situations from occurring.

Arthur, do you know what utilitarianism is?

This is utilitarianism, aimed at solving problems rather than just arguing back and forth.

It is a practical philosophy, a theoretical system that strives to provide a guide for legislators.

I am tired of endless debates; I just want to solve problems.”

Listening to this, Arthur seemed to gradually understand more.

“So, utilitarianism is a demand made specifically for legislators?”

Bentham nodded, “Of course.

Do you still remember the four legislative principles of utilitarianism?”

As a graduate of the University of London, Arthur certainly remembered the important arguments in Bentham’s writings.

He began, “First, base the final sentencing standards on the consequences of the criminal acts.

Second, the criteria for judging the consequences are the changes in happiness and suffering of all stakeholders, that is, the changes in each individual’s feelings caused by the criminal acts as the basis for moral judgment.

Third, consider the happiness and suffering of all stakeholders equally, this criterion does not change due to closeness or distance, nor due to objective conditions such as power, status, or wealth; every stakeholder should be considered according to the same standard.

Fourth, codified legislation should pursue the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, happiness derived from natural, political, ethical, and religious aspects.”

Bentham, smiling, patted Arthur on the shoulder, “Young man, ordinary people might not distinguish between legislation and ethics.

But you are an enforcer, and you must discern them clearly.

Although both legislation and ethics aim for happiness, not all unethical acts should be punished.

All punishment is in itself an evil, and it should only be allowed if it could potentially eliminate a greater evil.

In punishing, one should as much as possible achieve four goals.

The first principle is innocence, meaning the purpose of legislation is to prevent any wrongdoing as much as possible.

If such wrongdoing cannot be eradicated, then the second principle is adopted, using different punitive measures to force such criminals to choose lesser harm offenses rather than greater ones.

For example, in cases of robbery driven by property, although we cannot abolish robbery, we sentence robbers to exile and murderers to hanging, using different punitive measures to ensure that robbers do not resort to violent acts.

The third is to stop crime, to minimize the social damage caused by criminal acts and punitive measures.

The fourth is to spare punishment, to act with the least expenditure.”

At this point, noticing Arthur seemed to fall into a struggle of thought, Bentham said with a smile, “Arthur, you need to understand the law, especially the flaws in the law.

There is never a perfect law in this world, but we can pursue a perfect legal system.

This might be the meaning of your existence in this world.”

Arthur looked up at him, “Mr.

Bentham…”

Bentham said, “I’m old now, I don’t have many years left to live.

But it’s different for you; you are young, you need to stay strong and keep living in this world.

You did very well that day at the Magistrates’ Court.

You might not know, but I wrote a few articles for you in the Westminster Review.

Although you might not like it, this is all an old man like me can do now.

Young man, you always said you didn’t agree with me, but I’ve never told you, this old man actually agrees with you very much.

I often say, what is the motto of a good citizen in a law-governed government?

It is ‘strict obedience, free criticism’.

I could not find a more standard practice than your speech at the Magistrates’ Court that day.

Many people tell me they understand utilitarianism, but in my view, they don’t know a damn thing about utilitarianism!

They only remember me saying ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the standard of judging right and wrong’, but they forget I also said ‘it is futile to talk about societal welfare without understanding personal interest’.

They all want to reach for the stars but forget the flowers underneath their feet, those who only memorize books, they don’t see anything; everyday they only know this philosophy or that ideology, all they do is talk nonsense.

But you are different, Arthur, you are more down-to-earth; you see the flowers on the ground, and you know how to look up at the stars in the sky.”

Bentham patted Arthur’s cheek and clenched his fist, encouraging him, “Young man, keep pushing, strive hard!

I believe in you!”

Arthur slightly lowered his head, “Mr.

Bentham.”

“Hmm?”

Arthur raised his head, straightened his wet hair, and put on his black top hat.

“I may not be able to solve the problems, but I am willing to give my all.

Even if it may cause me personal suffering, I will, even at the sacrifice of myself, fulfill what you described as true utilitarianism.”