Page 169 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 9: Jeremy Bentham

Bentham’s laissez faire leanings were clear in his criticism of active and interventionist foreign Notes
policy. In 1789, he maintained that international harmony among people was possible only if
existing economic interdependence was recognized and accepted, for people would then realize
the truths of political economy. He was categorical that as in political economy, even in foreign
affairs, the government should observe “the great secret and do nothing”. While Smith defended
laissez faire by appealing to the guiding hand of providence, Bentham justified it on the grounds
of utility.
Though Bentham was a defender of laissez faire and free trade, it would be misleading to conclude
that he stood for a non-interventionist government and a minimal state. He was not a dogmatic
laissez faireist. He believed that government was an undeniable evil, but the evil could be minimized
if it could be used for the production of happiness, which meant security, abundance, subsistence
and equality identified as its ends. Of these four ends, security and subsistence were regarded as
the most important, while abundance and equality were “manifestly of inferior importance”. He
linked these ends with the proposals of Smith, and the result was a welfare state with free education,
guaranteed employment, minimum wages, sickness benefit and old age insurance.
Bentham contended that there could be neither abundance nor equality without security, and
therefore the chief concern of the law was to ensure security. Without some assurance that property
would be protected, individuals would not strive to create new wealth. According to Bentham, the
fundamental institution of private property was itself “only a foundation of expectation”. He
regarded the concept of expectation as a distinctive quality in human beings, for it played a
significant role in determining his decisions. Therefore, the purpose of the law was to secure
expectations, for it was a precondition not only to peace of mind and to the pleasure of anticipation,
but also to any general plan of conduct or forward looking activity. It was also the basic precondition
for economic enterprise and investment:
So crucial to liberal mind was the sense of secure expectations that ultimately the
satisfaction of expectations was identified with justice. In Bentham’s jurisprudence
justice was defined as the “disappointment-preventing principle” and the whole system
of civil law was dedicated to the exclusion of disappointment.
Bentham was equally convinced that the mass of the national wealth would increase if the wealth
of individuals increased, for, like Smith, he too believed that each person being the best judge of
his own interests would be most effective in producing it. He contended that government inaction
was required with regard to subsistence and economic abundance, for that would give the individual
freedom to pursue the best economic opportunities. Equality was problematic, for in the process of
equalizing the fortunes of the wealthy, it might stifle individual initiative. Moreover, security
preceded equality, for the pain that would be produced by social levelling would be more than the
pleasures of those whose position was alleviated. He was consistent in seeing economic levelling
as being impractical. To establish equality on a permanent basis was to undermine not only
security and abundance, but also subsistence, for that would subvert individual initiative.
Interestingly, Bentham insisted that a government should provide for subsistence for the indigent
through public works projects. He also proposed a system of agricultural communes and industry
houses to take care of the indigent, as distinguished from the working poor. Under both projects,
through strict supervision the indigent would be encouraged to become a part of the normal
labour market as soon as possible. Care was to be taken to ensure that the lot of the indigent was
not more beneficial than of those who were poor, for that would amount to rewarding shirkers,
becoming a positive disincentive to the industrious poor.
Rawls, in his A Theory of Justice (1971), reiterated the Benthamite principle of ensuring a fair and
just system, whereby both the free riders and the shirkers were not allowed to take advantage of
the system. Through his principle of fair equality of opportunity, the industrious individual and
his contributions to society were safeguarded, while the difference principle cared for those below

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 163