he wished to establish a code of laws--and, more generally, a social system--which would
automatically make men virtuous. His second principle, that of the greatest happiness, became
necessary at this point in order to define "virtue."
Bentham maintained that what is good is pleasure or happinesshe used these words as synonyms--
and what is bad is pain. Therefore one state of affairs is better than another if it involves a greater
balance of pleasure over pain, or a smaller balance of pain over pleasure. Of all possible states of
affairs, that one is best which involves the greatest balance of pleasure over pain.
There is nothing new in this doctrine, which came to be called "utilitarianism." It had been
advocated by Hutcheson as early as 1725. Bentham attributes it to Priestley, who, however, had no
special claim to it. It is virtually contained in Locke. Bentham's merit consisted not in the doctrine,
but in his vigorous application of it to various practical problems.
Bentham held not only that the good is happiness in general, but also that each individual always
pursues what he believes to be his own happiness. The business of the legislator, therefore, is to
produce harmony between public and private interests. It is to the interest of the public that I
should abstain from theft, but it is only to my interest where there is an effective criminal law.
Thus the criminal law is a method of making the interests of the individual coincide with those of
the community; that is its justification.
Men are to be punished by the criminal law in order to prevent crime, not because we hate the
criminal. It is more important that the punishment should be certain than that it should be severe.
In his day, in England, many quite minor offences were subject to the death penalty, with the
result that juries often refused to convict because they thought the penalty excessive. Bentham
advocated abolition of the death penalty for all but the worst offences, and before he died the
criminal law had been mitigated in this respect.
Civil law, he says, should have four aims: subsistence, abundance, security, and equality. It will be
observed that he does not mention liberty. In fact, he cared little for liberty. He admired the
benevolent autocrats who preceded the French Revolution--Catherine the Great and the Emperor
Francis. He had a great contempt for the doctrine of the rights of man. The rights of man, he said,
are plain nonsense;