chapter 71
In the lecture hall, Bentham and Arthur sat side by side, one on each side.
Bentham glanced at Arthur’s heavy dark circles and shook his head with a smile, “You look like you’re in rough shape.”
Arthur smiled, “Maybe. I remember discussing with you before about the principle of Kantian deontology and your principle of consequentialism.
Kantian deontology argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, whether it should be done or not, does not depend on its consequences, but whether the action itself conforms to moral norms.
While your consequentialism argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, whether it should be done or not, ultimately depends on the consequences of the action, the impact it brings, or may bring, and the changes it will bring to the world around it.”
Bentham asked, “Has your view changed now?”
Arthur first nodded, but then shook his head quickly, “It has changed, but it hasn’t. I think Kant makes sense, but I also think you make sense. That’s why you think I look like I’m in rough shape right now.”
Bentham held his cane with both hands and looked up at the dome of the lecture hall, “Let me guess, you are a police officer now, so you have encountered some difficult cases? You don’t know how to deal with the criminal? Or, you don’t understand some of the laws that are being enforced, and you don’t agree with their legislative principles?”
Arthur nodded, “You are indeed a great sage, you guessed right. I want to hang a group of people, but according to current law, they may not be able to die.”
Bentham shook his head, “I’m not a sage, I’m just a utilitarian. I just want to solve social problems.
As I told you before, utilitarianism is not a bad thing. My difference with Kant is mainly in two aspects.
Kant believes that humans are rational beings, so the moral concepts that humans recognize are also rational.
But when it comes to the specific implementation level, he uses a sensual method to look at it. He believes that since humans are rational, then as long as human behavior conforms to moral norms, there will be no mistakes.
My difference with him is that I believe that humans are sensual. Human behavior is entirely motivated by pleasure and pain.
Humans place themselves entirely under two masters—pain and pleasure. They tell us what we should do and decide what we will do. The standards of right and wrong, the causal connection, are all determined by them. Everything we think, say, and do is governed by them.
I believe that humans are sensual, but when it comes to actual implementation, I look at it from a rational perspective.
There is no qualitative difference between pleasure and pain, only a quantitative difference.
Therefore, the principle of utilitarianism is to increase the total amount of human happiness and well-being as much as possible, reduce the total amount of pain, and ultimately make the total amount of happiness far exceed pain.”
Arthur asked, “The theory always sounds good, but you should know that in actual implementation, whether it is Kant’s theory or yours, there will be some problems.”
“Of course.” Bentham laughed loudly, “Didn’t your train problem of killing one person or five people make me feel troubled?”
Arthur asked, “Do you have an answer now?”
Bentham imitated Arthur’s actions just now, first nodded, then shook his head, “Yes, but also no.”
“What do you mean?”
Bentham said, “Because whether you look at it from Kant’s perspective or from my perspective, the act of flipping the switch to kill someone is wrong.
Even from the standpoint of utilitarianism, this is not a simple math problem of choosing one or five.
You should have read my book. In my book, when I describe human happiness and pain, I mark its four sources and constraints, namely natural constraints, political constraints, moral constraints, and religious constraints.
Only from the perspective of political constraints will we reach the conclusion that five is greater than one, and thus choose to kill one person instead of five.
However, killing, whether from a natural, moral, or religious perspective, is the same for one and five. 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 be happy because the person chooses to kill one, nor will they be more sad because the person did not flip the switch, resulting in five people being killed by the train.
The pain that killing five and killing one brings to the public is actually the same.
Those who understand it as a simple math problem are deliberately muddying the waters of this kind of social problem to make it look deeper.
Instead of dwelling on this problem of killing people with a train, it is better to consider why people are tied up on the tracks.
And make amendments from the legislative perspective to minimize or even eliminate the occurrence of such situations.
Arthur, do you know what utilitarianism is? That’s utilitarianism, striving to solve problems, that’s utilitarianism.
It is a practical philosophy. Utilitarianism strives to provide a theoretical framework that can provide guidance standards for legislators. I am tired of all the endless arguments. I just want to solve problems.”
Arthur seemed to understand gradually when he heard this.
“So, utilitarianism is a requirement for legislators?”
Bentham nodded, “Of course. Do you remember the four legislative principles of utilitarianism?”
As a graduate of the University of London, Arthur certainly remembered the important arguments in Bentham’s works.
He said, “First, determine the final punishment standard based on the consequences of the criminal act.
Second, the standard for judging the good or bad of consequences is the change in happiness and pain of all relevant parties, that is, the change in the feelings of each individual caused by criminal behavior as the basis for moral judgment.
Third, consider the happiness and pain of all relevant parties equally. This standard does not change due to closeness or distance, nor does it change due to objective conditions such as power, status, and wealth. Each relevant party should be considered according to the same standard.
Fourth, written legislation should pursue the greatest happiness of the greatest number, happiness comes from four aspects: nature, politics, morality, and religion.”
Bentham smiled and patted Arthur on the shoulder, “Young man, ordinary people cannot distinguish between legislation and ethics. But you are a law enforcement officer, you must distinguish clearly.
Although both legislation and ethics are aimed at happiness, not all things that violate ethics should be punished.
All punishment is evil in itself. If it should be allowed, it can only be because it may prevent greater evils.
When punishing, four purposes should be achieved as much as possible.
The first principle is innocence, that is, the purpose of legislation is to prevent the occurrence of any guilt as much as possible.
If this guilt cannot be eliminated, then use the second principle, by using different punishment methods to force such criminals to choose less harmful crimes when committing crimes, rather than more harmful crimes.
For example, in the case of robbery caused by property, although we cannot eliminate robbery, we sentence robbery to exile, while sentencing murder to execution, using different punishment methods to achieve the result that criminals will not commit murder because of robbery.
The third is to stop crimes, to minimize the social damage caused by criminal acts and punishment methods.
The fourth is to cherish punishment, to act with the least expenditure.”
Speaking of this, Bentham saw that Arthur seemed to be in a state of struggling contemplation. He smiled and said, “Arthur, you have to understand the law, especially the flaws of the law.
There will never be perfect laws in this world, but we can strive for a perfect legal system.
Perhaps this is the meaning of your existence in this world.”
Arthur looked up at him, “Mr. Bentham…”
Bentham said, “I’m old, I don’t have many years to live. But you are different, you are still young, you have to live strong in this world.
What you did in the Magistrate’s Court that day was very good. You may not know, I also wrote several reviews for you in the Westminster Review.
Although you may not like it, this is all this old man can do now.
Young man, you always said you didn’t agree with me, but I didn’t tell you, this old man actually agrees with you very much.
I often say, in a government under the rule of law, what is the motto of a good citizen? That is, ‘strict obedience, free criticism’.
I can’t find a better example than your speech in the Magistrate’s Court.
Many people have told me that they understand utilitarianism, but in my opinion, they understand a damn thing about utilitarianism!
They only remember what I said, ‘The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the standard for judging right and wrong’, but they forget that I also said, ‘It is futile to talk about social interests without knowing what personal interests are’.
They all want to pick stars, but they forget the flowers under their feet. Those who only know how to read books are like this. They can’t see anything. They only know this philosophy and that ideology all day long. After talking for a long time, they are all farting.
But you are different, Arthur. You are more grounded than them. You can see the flowers on the ground and you also know how to look up at the stars in the sky.”
Bentham patted Arthur’s cheek and encouraged him with his fist clenched, “Young man, come on, work hard! I believe in you!”
Arthur lowered his head slightly, “Mr. Bentham.”
“Hmm?”
Arthur raised his head, smoothed his wet hair, and put on his round top hat.
“I may not be able to solve the problem, but I am willing to do my best. Even if it may make me personally feel pain, even if I sacrifice myself, I will realize what you call, true utilitarianism.”
(End of Chapter)