Bentham, Rights and Humanity: A Fight in Three Rounds

Amanda Alexander

doi:10.14324/111.2045-757x.019

Abstract

Utilitarianism, especially in the classical form advocated by Jeremy Bentham, is frequently and fiercely attacked for its inability to acknowledge and guarantee rights. Whether the example proffered is the punishment of the innocent, torture, murder or any other repugnant act, the accusation remains the same: Jeremy Bentham does not respect rights. Bentham himself would have assented to this statement – and with enthusiasm. Nonsense Upon Stilts, his response to the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen(the Declaration), is a devastating philosophical and political critique of the concept of natural rights. Indeed, Bentham’s destruction of the natural foundations of rights was so thorough that no one has managed to restore them.

Highlights

Utilitarianism, especially in the classical form advocated by Jeremy Bentham, is frequently and fiercely attacked for its inability to acknowledge and guarantee rights
The debate about Bentham, utilitarianism and rights is reduced to a simple dichotomy, which sets a Kantian vision of humans as ends in themselves against a utilitarian conception that exploits humans as a means to an end
Bedau, who incidentally acknowledges that his criticisms would apply better if the French title had been Bentham’s choice, attempts to argue that Bentham was so mistaken in attacking rights as fallacies that it undermines the whole premise of Nonsense Upon Stilts

Summary

Introduction

Utilitarianism, especially in the classical form advocated by Jeremy Bentham, is frequently and fiercely attacked for its inability to acknowledge and guarantee rights. If natural rights means rights that are anterior to government and imprescriptible Bentham states, they are nothing but a fallacy.[14] it has been suggested that Bentham’s arguments for this proposition have to be sought in his broader body of work,[15] he does provide several persuasive arguments for the non-existence of rights within Nonsense Upon Stilts.

Results

Conclusion