CRITICISMS ON BENTHAMS THEORY Presented by Rinkey Sharma

CRITICISMS ON BENTHAM’S THEORY Presented by: Rinkey Sharma Assistant Professor of Law IILS

CRITICISMS 1. One criticism against Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism was that it justified any crime and even made it morally compulsory to achieve the satisfaction of pleasure for the greatest number. 2. According to Friedman, there are two shortcomings in the Bentham’s theory. First, he over – estimated the powers of the legislature and underestimated the need for individual discretion and flexibility in the application of law. Second, his theory fails to balance individual interest and social interest of the community.

3. Another complaint presented was that theory is impracticable. The theory assumes that an individual has sufficient time, information and knowledge to calculate the consequences of an act, evaluate their worth and make comparison with other alternative acts before taking actions.

4. The moral and psychological basis of utilitarianism is not real: • Utilitarianism is based on the notion that whatever functions should or should not be performed by the individual should be tested on the touch-stone of utility. If this notion is accepted, each individual will work only for his own pleasure. • He will ignore benevolence, renunciation, service and sacrifice. This is the main drawback of Bentham’s theory. That is why Carlyal said angrily, “Bentham’s theory is theory of the pigs”. He thought that “man is also a fleshy body, who need only physical pleasure and nothing else. There is no place for a thing like moral consciousness in his conscience”.

• 5. Against human nature: • The utilitarian’s are of the view that the individual does every work for the attainment of pleasure and for the avoidance of pain. But this analysis of human nature is one-sided. The fact is that human nature is complex. He has qualities like pity, faith, service, benevolence, love, sympathy, sacrifice and forgiveness in him. • He fixes high ideals on the basis of these qualities and bears every type of pain smilingly. For instance, when India was under the foreign rule, many people faced many hardships at the hands of Britishers. They did all these not for their personal pleasure but for their high ideals. • Similarly, when in 1962 China invaded India and later on when in 1965 and 1971 Pakistan invaded India, thousands of heroes displayed exemplary courage and also sacrificed their lives. They did all this not for their personal interest but for the high ideal of the protection of their country. • Buddha, Christ, Shivaji, Guru Gobind Singh, V. D. Savarkar, B. G. Tilak, Subhash Chandra Bose and Mahatma Gandhi sacrificed everything not for any personal pleasure but for high ideal of benevolence.

• 6. Emphasis upon the material comforts only and ignored the spiritual happiness: • The utilitarian’s have cared only for physical comfort, and have ignored the suppression of sense and self-control. They have also no cared for the spiritual comfort which one derives from self-sacrifice for the sake of humanity. • 7. It is improper to lay emphasis solely upon the quantity of pleasures: • Bentham has stressed only upon the quantity of pleasure. He has not taken up the qualitative difference; therefore, John Stuart Mill has taken up the qualitative difference, which is appropriate.