The beginnings of utilitarian social theory can be traced to Greek philosophy. In the late sevent... more The beginnings of utilitarian social theory can be traced to Greek philosophy. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, it began to take on its classical form. Jeremy Bentham is usually identified as the fountainhead of the doctrine, but the contributions of Hutcheson, Hume, Beccaria, Helvétius, Godwin, and the 'religious utilitarians' should also be noted. After Bentham, the theory received its most celebrated treatment by John Stuart Mill. The article describes the essential elements of utilitarian theory, delineates the dissemination and development of utilitarian ideas, explores problems of theory and interpretation, and provides a survey of later developments.
Part 1 Religious advocates of the utility principle: "Preliminary Dissertation Concerning th... more Part 1 Religious advocates of the utility principle: "Preliminary Dissertation Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue and Morality" (1731), John Gay "On the Motives to Virtue and the Necessity of Religious Principle" (1751), John Brown "A Free Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil" (1757), Soames Jenyns "The Light of Nature Pursued" (1768-78), Abraham Tucker "On Morality and Religion", "The Nature of Obligation of Man as a Sensible and Rational Being" (1781), Edmund Law "The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy" (1785), William Paley. Part 2 Secular utilitarian critics of organized religion: "An Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind" (1822), "Not Paul, but Jesus" (1823), "The Church of England Catechism Examined" (1824), Jeremy Bentham "The Church, and Its Reform", 'London Review' (1835), James Mill 'Utility of Religion' from "Three Essays on Religion" (1874), John Stuart Mill.
The chief aim of the Agreement was a return to constitutional politics in the six counties of Uls... more The chief aim of the Agreement was a return to constitutional politics in the six counties of Ulster. It was thought that this could be achieved in two ways. First, by removing the alienation of the Catholic minority from the institutions of state. Second, by reassuring the Protestant majority that concessions to the Catholics wouid not jeopardise their right to remain within the United Kingdom. It was hoped that the resulting political atmosphere would facilitate the establishment of a devolved government in Belfast in which Catholics and Protestants could share the responsibility for government. The Agreement would, it was hoped, help to fashion some form of pressure to persuade Ulster's Protestants to accept power-sharing as a lesser evil eventually. In order to overcome Catholic alienation the Republic of Ireland was given an unprecedented advisory role in the affairs of the North (Articles 2 and 6). To facilitate this, an Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference was established together with a permanent secretariat, housed in buildings at Maryfield near Belfast. Under the aegis of the new Conference the British government accepted that 'the Irish government will put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland [. . .] insofar as those matters are not the responsibility of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.' To this is added the statement that 'determined efforts shall be made through the Conference to resolve any differences' (Article 2b). The immediate task facing the Conference in November 1985 was to remedy several of the more pressing minority grievances, especially those concerning the judiciary (Article 8) and relations between the security forces and the Catholic community (Article 7a). It was felt that these should include restrictions on the activities of the overwhelmingly Protestant Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and the mainly Protestant Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), along with an examination of the non-jury Diplock court system and the use of 'supergrass' evidence in the trials of suspected terrorists. The Agreement also promised measures to foster the cultural heritage of both traditions (Article 5b), an implicit reference to plans to legalise the use of the Irish language in Northern Ireland. A specific mention was made of the need to deal with 'flags and emblems' (Article 5a), a reference to the Flags and Emblems Act 1954 which prohibits the display of the Irish flag north of the border.
Historians of political thought commonly assume that the similarities in the thought of Thomas Ho... more Historians of political thought commonly assume that the similarities in the thought of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) are the product of Bentham's reading of Hobbes and infer that Bentham was in a certain sense a disciple of Hobbes.1 This has been generally true through the past one hundred years of scholarship, from the commentator writing at the end of the nineteenth century who had no doubt that Bentham's "chief ideas and methods are to be found in Hobbes," to the end of the last century when Gerald Postema insisted that Bentham was "a careful student of Hobbes."2 In between George Sabine argued that Hobbes's political philosophy "affected the whole later history of moral and political thought," but its powerful "positive influence" was most fully felt in the nineteenth century when his ideas were incorporated into the thinking of the utilitarians.3 The implication of Sabine's comment was that Hobbes's influence was not always of the positive sort. In other words, if one can conceive of influence being positive then it can also be negative, and Hobbes had just such an influence on many who read him until his ideas became respectable in the hands of Bentham and his associates.4 John Plamenatz concurred. Bentham, he wrote, "lived in the shadow of Hobbes" and, together with James Mill, came close to "an uncritical acceptance" of Hobbes's doctrines.5 Because Bentham abandoned Hobbes's "vocabulary" (laws of nature, natural rights, covenant, and so forth) "the difference between them appears so much greater than it is," claimed Plamenatz. But eliminate the troublesome phrases from Hobbes's writings and what remains, save for Hobbes's extravagant fear of anarchy, is strikingly similar to the fundamental political doctrines of Bentham.6 At the heart of the syndrome of ideas that the utilitarians are assumed to have inherited from Hobbes is the belief that the methods of physical science were the proper models for political explanation.7 William Bluhm wrote that the mechanistic and naturalistic framework in which Hobbes couched his theory was not to be approached in the literature of political theory until Bentham set forth his felicific calculus. Since the time of Hobbes, Bluhm argued, Bentham stands out as the great exception to the history of neglect that has been the general fate of mathematical forms of analysis in the study of politics (until the second half of the twentieth century).8 Moreover, in postulating man as a rational actor motivated by selfish interest and in suggesting that it is in the interest of the ruler to govern in the majority interest as the best way of preserving his own power, Bluhm argued that Hobbes provided "an interesting echo ... of a central Benthamic principle, [and thus] good evidence that Hobbes is the forerunner of Utilitarianism."9 The views of Sabine, Plamenatz, and Bluhm found an impressive echo in John Bowle's influential Hobbes and his Critics, where Hobbes is described as "a forerunner of the Benthamite school of political thought."10 It is with this kind of understanding in mind, that W. H. Greenleaf commented, "it is no accident that the modern revival of interest in Hobbesian ideas is associated with the utilitarians...."11 Oddly, these commentators have remarkably few references to Hobbes in Bentham's writings to work with. …
The beginnings of utilitarian social theory can be traced to Greek philosophy. In the late sevent... more The beginnings of utilitarian social theory can be traced to Greek philosophy. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, it began to take on its classical form. Jeremy Bentham is usually identified as the fountainhead of the doctrine, but the contributions of Hutcheson, Hume, Beccaria, Helvétius, Godwin, and the 'religious utilitarians' should also be noted. After Bentham, the theory received its most celebrated treatment by John Stuart Mill. The article describes the essential elements of utilitarian theory, delineates the dissemination and development of utilitarian ideas, explores problems of theory and interpretation, and provides a survey of later developments.
Part 1 Religious advocates of the utility principle: "Preliminary Dissertation Concerning th... more Part 1 Religious advocates of the utility principle: "Preliminary Dissertation Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue and Morality" (1731), John Gay "On the Motives to Virtue and the Necessity of Religious Principle" (1751), John Brown "A Free Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil" (1757), Soames Jenyns "The Light of Nature Pursued" (1768-78), Abraham Tucker "On Morality and Religion", "The Nature of Obligation of Man as a Sensible and Rational Being" (1781), Edmund Law "The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy" (1785), William Paley. Part 2 Secular utilitarian critics of organized religion: "An Analysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind" (1822), "Not Paul, but Jesus" (1823), "The Church of England Catechism Examined" (1824), Jeremy Bentham "The Church, and Its Reform", 'London Review' (1835), James Mill 'Utility of Religion' from "Three Essays on Religion" (1874), John Stuart Mill.
The chief aim of the Agreement was a return to constitutional politics in the six counties of Uls... more The chief aim of the Agreement was a return to constitutional politics in the six counties of Ulster. It was thought that this could be achieved in two ways. First, by removing the alienation of the Catholic minority from the institutions of state. Second, by reassuring the Protestant majority that concessions to the Catholics wouid not jeopardise their right to remain within the United Kingdom. It was hoped that the resulting political atmosphere would facilitate the establishment of a devolved government in Belfast in which Catholics and Protestants could share the responsibility for government. The Agreement would, it was hoped, help to fashion some form of pressure to persuade Ulster's Protestants to accept power-sharing as a lesser evil eventually. In order to overcome Catholic alienation the Republic of Ireland was given an unprecedented advisory role in the affairs of the North (Articles 2 and 6). To facilitate this, an Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference was established together with a permanent secretariat, housed in buildings at Maryfield near Belfast. Under the aegis of the new Conference the British government accepted that 'the Irish government will put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland [. . .] insofar as those matters are not the responsibility of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.' To this is added the statement that 'determined efforts shall be made through the Conference to resolve any differences' (Article 2b). The immediate task facing the Conference in November 1985 was to remedy several of the more pressing minority grievances, especially those concerning the judiciary (Article 8) and relations between the security forces and the Catholic community (Article 7a). It was felt that these should include restrictions on the activities of the overwhelmingly Protestant Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and the mainly Protestant Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), along with an examination of the non-jury Diplock court system and the use of 'supergrass' evidence in the trials of suspected terrorists. The Agreement also promised measures to foster the cultural heritage of both traditions (Article 5b), an implicit reference to plans to legalise the use of the Irish language in Northern Ireland. A specific mention was made of the need to deal with 'flags and emblems' (Article 5a), a reference to the Flags and Emblems Act 1954 which prohibits the display of the Irish flag north of the border.
Historians of political thought commonly assume that the similarities in the thought of Thomas Ho... more Historians of political thought commonly assume that the similarities in the thought of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) are the product of Bentham's reading of Hobbes and infer that Bentham was in a certain sense a disciple of Hobbes.1 This has been generally true through the past one hundred years of scholarship, from the commentator writing at the end of the nineteenth century who had no doubt that Bentham's "chief ideas and methods are to be found in Hobbes," to the end of the last century when Gerald Postema insisted that Bentham was "a careful student of Hobbes."2 In between George Sabine argued that Hobbes's political philosophy "affected the whole later history of moral and political thought," but its powerful "positive influence" was most fully felt in the nineteenth century when his ideas were incorporated into the thinking of the utilitarians.3 The implication of Sabine's comment was that Hobbes's influence was not always of the positive sort. In other words, if one can conceive of influence being positive then it can also be negative, and Hobbes had just such an influence on many who read him until his ideas became respectable in the hands of Bentham and his associates.4 John Plamenatz concurred. Bentham, he wrote, "lived in the shadow of Hobbes" and, together with James Mill, came close to "an uncritical acceptance" of Hobbes's doctrines.5 Because Bentham abandoned Hobbes's "vocabulary" (laws of nature, natural rights, covenant, and so forth) "the difference between them appears so much greater than it is," claimed Plamenatz. But eliminate the troublesome phrases from Hobbes's writings and what remains, save for Hobbes's extravagant fear of anarchy, is strikingly similar to the fundamental political doctrines of Bentham.6 At the heart of the syndrome of ideas that the utilitarians are assumed to have inherited from Hobbes is the belief that the methods of physical science were the proper models for political explanation.7 William Bluhm wrote that the mechanistic and naturalistic framework in which Hobbes couched his theory was not to be approached in the literature of political theory until Bentham set forth his felicific calculus. Since the time of Hobbes, Bluhm argued, Bentham stands out as the great exception to the history of neglect that has been the general fate of mathematical forms of analysis in the study of politics (until the second half of the twentieth century).8 Moreover, in postulating man as a rational actor motivated by selfish interest and in suggesting that it is in the interest of the ruler to govern in the majority interest as the best way of preserving his own power, Bluhm argued that Hobbes provided "an interesting echo ... of a central Benthamic principle, [and thus] good evidence that Hobbes is the forerunner of Utilitarianism."9 The views of Sabine, Plamenatz, and Bluhm found an impressive echo in John Bowle's influential Hobbes and his Critics, where Hobbes is described as "a forerunner of the Benthamite school of political thought."10 It is with this kind of understanding in mind, that W. H. Greenleaf commented, "it is no accident that the modern revival of interest in Hobbesian ideas is associated with the utilitarians...."11 Oddly, these commentators have remarkably few references to Hobbes in Bentham's writings to work with. …
Uploads
Papers by James Crimmins