[445] _Ibid._ ("Plan of Parliamentary Reform,") iii. 463.
[446] _Works_, ix. 594.
[447] _Ibid._ ix. 62.
[448] _Ibid._ ix. 24.
[449] _Ibid._ ix. 48.
[450] _Dissertations_, i. 377.
[451] _Works_, ii. 497.
[452] _Ibid._ ii. 501.
[453] _Ibid._ ii. 503.
[454] _Justice_, p. 264; so Price, in his _Observations on Liberty_, lays it down that government is never to entrench upon private liberty, "except so far as private liberty entrenches on the liberty of others."
[455] _Works_, ii. 506.
[456] _Works_, ii. 401.
[457] _Autobiography_, p. 274.
[458] Hobbes, in the _Leviathan_ (chap. xiii.), has in the same way to argue for the _de facto_ equality of men.
[459] _Dissertations_, i. 375.
[460] I remark by antic.i.p.ation that this expression implies a reference to Mill"s _Ethology_, of which I shall have to speak.
[461] _Works_, ix. 96, 113.
[462] _Dissertations_, i. 376.
VII. INDIVIDUALISM
"Individualism" in the first place is generally mentioned in a different connection. The "ready-made" man of whom I have spoken becomes the "economic man." Bentham himself contributed little to economic theory.
His most important writing was the _Defence of Usury_, and in this, as we have seen, he was simply adding a corollary to the _Wealth of Nations_. The _Wealth of Nations_ itself represented the spirit of business; the revolt of men who were building up a vast industrial system against the fetters imposed by traditional legislation and by rulers who regarded industry in general, as Telford is said to have regarded rivers. Rivers were meant to supply ca.n.a.ls, and trade to supply tax-gatherers. With this revolt, of course, Bentham was in full sympathy, but here I shall only speak of one doctrine of great interest, which occurs both in his political treatises and his few economical remarks. Bentham objected, as we have seen, to the abstract theory of equality; yet it was to the mode of deduction rather than to the doctrine itself which he objected. He gave, in fact, his own defence; and it is one worth notice.[463] The principle of equality is derivative, not ultimate. Equality is good because equality increases the sum of happiness. Thus, as he says,[464] if two men have 1000, and you transfer 500 from one to the other, you increase the recipient"s wealth by one-third, and diminish the loser"s wealth by one-half. You therefore add less pleasure than you subtract. The principle is given less mathematically[465] by the more significant argument that "felicity" depends not simply on the "matter of felicity" or the stimulus, but also on the sensibility to felicity which is necessarily limited. Therefore by adding wealth--taking, for example, from a thousand labourers to give to one king--you are supersaturating a sensibility already glutted by taking away from others a great amount of real happiness. With this argument, which has of late years become conspicuous in economics, he connects another of primary importance. The first condition of happiness, he says, is not "equality" but "security."
Now you can only equalise at the expense of security. If I am to have my property taken away whenever it is greater than my neighbour"s, I can have no security.[466] Hence, if the two principles conflict, equality should give way. Security is the primary, which must override the secondary, aim. Must the two principles, then, always conflict? No; but "time is the only mediator."[467] The law may help to acc.u.mulate inequalities; but in a prosperous state there is a "continual progress towards equality." The law has to stand aside; not to maintain monopolies; not to restrain trade; not to permit entails; and then property will diffuse itself by a natural process, already exemplified in the growth of Europe. The "pyramids" heaped up in feudal times have been lowered, and their "_debris_ spread abroad" among the industrious.
Here again we see how Bentham virtually diverges from the _a priori_ school. Their absolute tendencies would introduce "equality" by force; he would leave it to the spontaneous progress of security. Hence Bentham is in the main an adherent of what he calls[468] the "_laissez-nous faire_" principle. He advocates it most explicitly in the so-called _Manual of Political Economy_--a short essay first printed in 1798.[469]
The tract, however, such as it is, is less upon political economy proper than upon economic legislation; and its chief conclusion is that almost all legislation is improper. His main principle is "Be quiet" (the equivalent of the French phrase, which surely should have been excluded from so English a theory). Security and freedom are all that industry requires; and industry should say to government only what Diogenes said to Alexander, "Stand out of my sunshine."[470]
Once more, however, Bentham will not lay down the "let alone" principle absolutely. His adherence to the empirical method is too decided. The doctrine "be quiet," though generally true, rests upon utility, and may, therefore, always be qualified by proving that in a particular case the balance of utility is the other way. In fact, some of Bentham"s favourite projects would be condemned by an absolute adherent of the doctrine. The Panopticon, for example, though a "mill to grind rogues honest" could be applied to others than rogues, and Bentham hoped to make his machinery equally effective in the case of pauperism. A system of national education is also included in his ideal const.i.tution. It is, in fact, important to remember that the "individualism" of Benthamism does not necessarily coincide with an absolute restriction of government interference. The general tendency was in that direction; and in purely economical questions, scarcely any exception was admitted to the rule.
Men are the best judges, it was said, of their own interest; and the interference of rulers in a commercial transaction is the interference of people inferior in knowledge of the facts, and whose interests are "sinister" or inconsistent with those of the persons really concerned.
Utility, therefore, will, as a rule, forbid the action of government: but, as utility is always the ultimate principle, and there may be cases in which it does not coincide with the "let alone" principle, we must always admit the possibility that in special cases government can interfere usefully, and, in that case, approve the interference.
Hence we have the ethical application of these theories. The individualist position naturally tends to take the form of egoism. The moral sentiments, whatever they may be, are clearly an intrinsic part of the organic social instincts. They are intimately involved in the whole process of social evolution. But this view corresponds precisely to the conditions which Bentham overlooks. The individual is already there. The moral and the legal sanctions are "external"; something imposed by the action of others; corresponding to "coercion," whether by physical force or the dread of public opinion; and, in any case, an accretion or addition, not a profound modification of his whole nature. The Utilitarian "man" therefore inclines to consider other people as merely parts of the necessary machinery. Their feelings are relevant only as influencing their outward conduct. If a man gives me a certain "lot" of pain or pleasure, it does not matter what may be his motives. The "motive" for all conduct corresponds in all cases to the pain or pleasure accruing to the agent. It is true that his happiness will be more or less affected by his relations to others. But as conduct is ruled by a calculation of the balance of pains or pleasures dependent upon any course of action, it simplifies matters materially, if each man regards his neighbour"s feelings simply as instrumental, not intrinsically interesting. And thus the coincidence between that conduct which maximises my happiness and that conduct which maximises happiness in general, must be regarded as more or less accidental or liable in special cases to disappear. If I am made happier by action which makes others miserable, the rule of utility will lead to my preference of myself.
Here we have the question whether the Utilitarian system be essentially a selfish system. Bentham, with his vague psychology, does not lay down the doctrine absolutely. After giving this list of self-regarding "springs of action," he proceeds to add the pleasures and pains of "sympathy" and "antipathy" which, he says, are not self-regarding.
Moreover, as we have seen, he has some difficulty in denying that "benevolence" is a necessarily moral motive: it is only capable of prompting to bad conduct in so far as it is insufficiently enlightened; and it is clear that a moralist who makes the "greatest happiness of the greatest number" his universal test, has some reason for admitting as an elementary pleasure the desire for the greatest happiness. This comes out curiously in the _Const.i.tutional Code_. He there lays down the "self-preference principle"--the principle, namely, that "every human being" is determined in every action by his judgment of what will produce the greatest happiness to himself, "whatsoever be the effect ...
in relation to the happiness of other similar beings, any or all of them taken together."[471] Afterwards, however, he observes that it is "the constant and arduous task of every moralist" and of every legislator who deserves the name to "increase the influence of sympathy at the expense of that of self-regard and of sympathy for the greater number at the expense of sympathy for the lesser number."[472] He tries to reconcile these views by the remark "that even sympathy has its root in self-regard," and he argues, as Mr. Herbert Spencer has done more fully, that if Adam cared only for Eve and Eve only for Adam--neither caring at all for himself or herself--both would perish in less than a year.
Self-regard, that is, is essential, and sympathy supposes its existence.
Hence Bentham puts himself through a catechism.[473] What is the "best"
government? That which causes the greatest happiness of the given community. What community? "Any community, which is as much as to say, every community." But _why_ do you desire this happiness? Because the establishment of that happiness would contribute to _my_ greatest happiness. And _how_ do you prove that you desire this result? By my labours to obtain it, replies Bentham. This oddly omits the more obvious question, how can you be sure that your happiness will be promoted by the greatest happiness of all? What if the two criteria differ? I desire the general happiness, he might have replied, because my benevolence is an original or elementary instinct which can override my self-love; or I desire it, he would perhaps have said, because I know as a fact that the happiness of others will incidentally contribute to my own. The first answer would fall in with some of his statements; but the second is, as I think must be admitted, more in harmony with his system.
Perhaps, indeed, the most characteristic thing is Bentham"s failure to discuss explicitly the question whether human action is or is not necessarily "selfish." He tells us in regard to the "springs of action"
that all human action is always "interested," but explains that the word properly includes actions in which the motive is not "self-regarding."[474] It merely means, in fact, that all conduct has motives. The statement, which I have quoted about the "self-preference"
principle may only mean a doctrine which is perfectly compatible with a belief in "altruism"--the doctrine, namely, that as a fact most people are chiefly interested by their own affairs. The legislator, he tells us, should try to increase sympathy, but the less he takes sympathy for the "basis of his arrangements"--that is, the less call he makes upon purely unselfish motives--the greater will be his success.[475] This is a shrewd and, I should say, a very sound remark, but it implies--not that all motives are selfish in the last a.n.a.lysis, but--that the legislation should not a.s.sume too exalted a level of ordinary morality.
The utterances in the very unsatisfactory _Deontology_ are of little value, and seem to imply a moral sentiment corresponding to a petty form of commonplace prudence.[476]
Leaving this point, however, the problem necessarily presented itself to Bentham in a form in which selfishness is the predominating force, and any recognition of independent benevolence rather an inc.u.mbrance than a help. If we take the "self-preference principle" absolutely, the question becomes how a mult.i.tude of individuals, each separately pursuing his own happiness, can so arrange matters that their joint action may secure the happiness of all. Clearly a man, however selfish, has an interest generally in putting down theft and murder. He is already provided with a number of interests to which security, at least, and therefore a regular administration of justice, is essential. His shop could not be carried on without the police; and he may agree to pay the expenses, even if others reap the benefit in greater proportion. A theory of legislation, therefore, which supposes ready formed all the instincts which make a decent commercial society possible can do without much reference to sympathy or altruism. Bentham"s man is not the colourless unit of _a priori_ writing, nor the n.o.ble savage of Rousseau, but the respectable citizen with a policeman round the corner. Such a man may well hold that honesty is the best policy; he has enough sympathy to be kind to his old mother, and help a friend in distress; but the need of romantic and elevated conduct rarely occurs to him; and the heroic, if he meets it, appears to him as an exception, not far removed from the silly. He does not reflect--especially if he cares nothing for history--how even the society in which he is a contented unit has been built up, and how much loyalty and heroism has been needed for the work; nor even, to do him justice, what unsuspected capacities may lurk in his own commonplace character. The really characteristic point is, however, that Bentham does not clearly face the problem. He is content to take for granted as an ultimate fact that the self-interest principle in the long run coincides with the greatest "happiness"
principle, and leaves the problem to his successors. There we shall meet it again.
Finally, Bentham"s view of religion requires a word. The short reply, however, would be sufficient, that he did not believe in any theology, and was in the main indifferent to the whole question till it encountered him in political matters. His first interest apparently was roused by the educational questions which I have noticed, and the proposal to teach the catechism. Bentham, remembering the early bullying at Oxford, examines the catechism; and argues in his usual style that to enforce it is to compel children to tell lies. But this leads him to a.s.sail the church generally; and he regards the church simply as a part of the huge corrupt machinery which elsewhere had created Judge and Co.
He states many facts about non-residence and bloated bishoprics which had a very serious importance; and he then asks how the work might be done more cheaply. As a clergyman"s only duty is to read weekly services and preach sermons, he suggests (whether seriously may be doubted) that this might be done as well by teaching a parish boy to read properly, and provide him with the prayer-book and the homilies.[477] A great deal of expense would be saved. This, again, seems to have led him to attack St. Paul, whom he took to be responsible for dogmatic theology, and therefore for the catechism; and he cross-examines the apostle, and confronts his various accounts of the conversion with a keenness worthy of a professional lawyer. In one of the MSS. at University College the same method is applied to the gospels. Bentham was clearly not capable of antic.i.p.ating Renan. From these studies he was led to the far more interesting book, published under the name of _Philip Beauchamp_.
Bentham supplied the argument in part; but to me it seems clear that it owes so much to the editor, Grote, that it may more fitly be discussed hereafter.
The limitations and defects of Bentham"s doctrine have been made abundantly evident by later criticism. They were due partly to his personal character, and partly to the intellectual and special atmosphere in which he was brought up. But it is more important to recognise the immense real value of his doctrine. Briefly, I should say, that there is hardly an argument in Bentham"s voluminous writings which is not to the purpose so far as it goes. Given his point of view, he is invariably cogent and relevant. And, moreover, that is a point of view which has to be taken. No ethical or political doctrine can, as I hold, be satisfactory which does not find a place for Bentham, though he was far, indeed, from giving a complete theory of his subject. And the main reason of this is that which I have already indicated. Bentham"s whole life was spent in the attempt to create a science of legislation. Even where he is most tiresome, there is a certain interest in his unflagging working out of every argument, and its application to all conceivable cases. It is all genuine reasoning; and throughout it is dominated by a respect for good solid facts. His hatred of "vague generalities"[478]
means that he will be content with no formula which cannot be interpreted in terms of definite facts. The resolution to insist upon this should really be characteristic of every writer upon similar subjects, and no one ever surpa.s.sed Bentham in attention to it. Cla.s.sify and re-cla.s.sify, to make sure that at every point your cla.s.ses correspond to realities. In the effort to carry out these principles, Bentham at least brought innumerable questions to a sound test, and exploded many pestilent fallacies. If he did not succeed further, if whole spheres of thought remained outside of his vision, it was because in his day there was not only no science of "sociology" or psychology--there are no such sciences now--but no adequate perception of the vast variety of investigation which would be necessary to lay a basis for them. But the effort to frame a science is itself valuable, indeed of surpa.s.sing value, so far as it is combined with a genuine respect for facts. It is common enough to attempt to create a science by inventing technical terminology. Bentham tried the far wider and far more fruitful method of a minute investigation of particular facts. His work, therefore, will stand, however different some of the results may appear when fitted into a different framework. And, therefore, however crudely and imperfectly, Bentham did, as I believe, help to turn speculation into a true and profitable channel. Of that, more will appear hereafter; but, if any one doubts Bentham"s services, I will only suggest to him to compare Bentham with any of his British contemporaries, and to ask where he can find anything at all comparable to his resolute attempt to bring light and order into a chaotic infusion of compromise and prejudice.
NOTES:
[463] _Works_, "Civil Code" (from Dumont), i. 302, 305; _Ibid._ ("Principles of Const.i.tutional Code") ii. 271; _Ibid._ ("Const.i.tutional Code") ix. 15-18.
[464] _Works_, i. 306 _n._
[465] _Ibid._ ix. 15.
[466] _Ibid._ ("Principles of Penal Code") i. 311.
[467] _Ibid._ i. 312.
[468] _Works_, x. 440.
[469] _Ibid._ iii. 33, etc.
[470] _Ibid._ iii. 35.
[471] _Works_, ix. 5.
[472] _Ibid._ ix. 192.
[473] _Ibid._ ix. 7.
[474] _Works_, i. 212.
[475] _Ibid._ ix. 192.