shadow of britain

Chapter 72 Bentham's Apocalypse
In the lecture hall, Bentham and Arthur sat down next to each other.

Bentham glanced at Arthur's heavy dark circles, smiled and shook his head: "You don't look well."

Arthur smiled: "Perhaps. I remember discussing with you the principle of deontology advocated by Kant and the principle of consequentialism advocated by you.

The deontology advocated by Kant believes that whether something is right or wrong and should be done does not depend on the consequences it will bring, but on whether the behavior itself conforms to moral norms.

And the consequential theory you advocate believes that whether something is right or wrong, whether it should be done or not, in the final analysis, it is necessary to consider what consequences the behavior brings or may bring, what kind of impact it will have, and will make the world around you what has changed. "

Bentham asked: "Have your views changed now?"

Arthur nodded first, but quickly shook his head again: "It has changed, but it hasn't changed. I think what Kant said makes sense, but I think what you say also makes sense. That's why, you will I don't think I look very well right now."

Bentham held his cane in both hands and stared up at the dome of the lecture hall: "Let me guess, you are a policeman now, so what kind of difficult case did you encounter? Don't know how to deal with the prisoner? Or, You don’t quite understand some of the laws being implemented, and you don’t agree with their legislative principles?”

Arthur nodded and said: "You are indeed a great wise man, you guessed it right. I want to hang a group of people, but according to the current law, they may not be able to die."

Bentham shook his head and said, "I'm not a wise man, I'm just a utilitarian, I just hope to solve social problems.

Like I told you earlier, utility is not a bad thing.The difference between my point of view and Kant's is mainly in two aspects.

Kant believed that people are rational people, so the moral concepts that people agree with are also rational.

But when it comes to the specific implementation level, he looks at it in a perceptual way. He believes that since people are rational, there is nothing wrong with people's behavior as long as they conform to the moral norms.

The difference between me and him is that I think people are emotional, and human behavior is completely motivated by pleasure and pain.

Humanity has placed itself entirely under two masters—pain and pleasure.They instruct us what we should do, decide what we will do, right and wrong, causal connection, they all decide.Everything we think, say, and do is governed by them.

I think people are emotional, but when it comes to actual execution, I look at it from a rational perspective.

There is no qualitative difference between pleasure and pain, only the total difference.

Therefore, the principle of utilitarianism is to maximize the total amount of happiness and happiness for all human beings, 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 the actual implementation process, whether it is Kant's theory or your theory, there will be some problems."

"Of course." Bentham laughed loudly, "Isn't the question of whether your train crushed one person or five people to death just a problem for me?"

Arthur asked, "Do you have an answer now?"

Bentham imitated Arthur's action just now, first nodded, then shook his head: "Yes, but also no."

"How do you say that?"

Bentham said: "Because whether you look at it from Kant's point of view or from my point of view, it is wrong to turn a track switch and crush someone to death.

Even from a utilitarian standpoint, this is not a simple math problem of choosing one or five.

You should have read my book. When I expressed human happiness and pain in the book, I marked its four sources and binding forces, namely natural binding force, political binding force, moral binding force and religious binding force.

Only by considering the issue from the perspective of political binding force can one come to the conclusion that five is greater than one, and thus choose to crush one person instead of five.

But killing people, no matter from the point of view of nature, morality or religion, one person is actually the same as five people. Killing a person is killing a person, there is no difference.

When the public knows that someone is forced to choose between killing one person and killing five, they are not happy that that person chooses to kill one, nor that five people are crushed to death by a train because that person didn't flip the switch And sadder.

Killing five people causes the same pain to the public as killing one.

Those who understand it as a simple math problem are deliberately muddying the waters of such social problems to make them seem deeper.

Rather than dwelling on the problem of running a train over people, it is better to consider why people are tied up and placed on the tracks.

And make amendments from the perspective of legislation to reduce or even eliminate the occurrence of such situations as much as possible.

Arthur, do you know what utilitarianism is?This is utilitarianism, dedicated to solving problems, is utilitarianism.

This is a practical philosophy, and utilitarianism strives to provide a theoretical system that can guide lawmakers. I am tired of those chattering debates, and I just want to solve the problem. "

When Arthur heard this, he seemed to gradually understand.

"So utilitarianism is a requirement for legislators?"

Bentham nodded. "Of course. Do you remember the utilitarian's four legislative principles?"

As a London University graduate, Arthur certainly remembered important statements from Bentham's writings.

He said: "First, based on the consequences of the crime, determine the final penalty standard.

Second, the criterion for judging whether the consequences are good or bad is the changes in the happiness and pain of all relevant parties, that is, the changes in each individual's feelings caused by criminal behavior are used as the basis for moral judgments.

Third, consider the happiness and pain of all related 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. Every related party should be considered according to the same standard.

Fourth, written legislation should pursue the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness comes from four aspects: nature, politics, morality, and religion. "

Bentham smiled and patted Arthur on the shoulder: "Young man, ordinary people can't tell the difference between legislation and ethics. But you are a law enforcer, you have to distinguish clearly.

Although both legislation and ethics are aimed at happiness, not all violations of ethics should be punished.

All punishment is evil in itself, and if it should be allowed, it is only because it has the potential to exclude 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 as far as possible the occurrence of any crime.

If this kind of crime cannot be eradicated, then the second principle should be used to force such criminals to choose less harmful crimes rather than more harmful ones when committing crimes by using different means of punishment.

For example, the crime of robbery caused by property, although we cannot prohibit the crime of robbery, we sentence the crime of robbery to exile, and sentence the crime of homicide to hang, and use different punishment methods to achieve the result that the criminal will not commit murder because of the robbery.

The third is to stop the crime, to reduce the social damage caused by criminal behavior and punishment means as much as possible.

The fourth is to cherish the punishment, and act with the minimum expenditure. "

Speaking of this, Bentham saw that Arthur seemed to be struggling in contemplation, and he said with a smile: "Arthur, you have to understand the law, especially the flaws of the law.

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

This may be the meaning of being in this world for a person like you. "

Arthur looked up at him: "Mr. Bentham..."

Bentham said: "I'm old, and I don't have a few years to live. But you are different, you are still young, and you have to be strong to live in this world.

You did very well that day in the magistrates' court.As you may not know, I also wrote a couple of reviews for you in the Westminster Review.

Although you may not like it, these are the only things I, an old man, can do now.

Young man, you used to say that you didn't agree with me, but I didn't tell you, but I, an old man, agree with you very much.

I often say, what is the motto of a good citizen in a government ruled by law?That is 'strict obedience, free criticism'.

I can't find a more standard practice than your speech in the magistrate's court.

Many people told me that they understand utilitarianism, but in my opinion, they understand shitty utilitarianism!
They only remember that I said that 'the greatest happiness of most people is the criterion for judging right from wrong', but they forgot that I also said that 'it is futile to talk about social interests without knowing what personal interests are'.

They all want to pick the stars too much, but they forget the flowers under their feet. People who only know how to read are like this. They can't see anything. They only know this philosophy and that doctrine every day, and they are talking about it for a long time.

But you are different, Arthur, you are more grounded than them, you can see the flowers on the ground, and you know how to look up at the stars in the sky. "

Bentham patted Arthur's side face, and the old man squeezed his fist to encourage him: "Young man, come on, work hard! I believe in you!"

Arthur lowered his head slightly: "Mr. Bentham."

"Ok?"

Arthur raised his head, stroked his wet hair, and put on his round black hat.

"I may not be able to solve the problem, but I am willing to do my best. Even if it may cause me personal pain, but even at the expense of myself, I will achieve what you call true utilitarianism."

(End of this chapter)