Essay Sample on Jeremy Bentham's Critique of Natural Rights Theory

Introduction

According to Jeremy Bentham, the central idea of Utilitarianism is that everyone is governed by feelings of pleasure and pain. These feelings are the primary guide in everything that an individual undertakes and determines what ought to be done. Jeremy Bentham's critique on the Rights of a Man theory was one of the most significant attacks on the idea of natural rights theory. Natural Rights theory was a French doctrine used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as a justification of resistance to unjust laws and the revolt against oppressive governments. Bentham, in his reproach on the French Declaration of Rights, termed natural rights as "Anarchical Fallacies" because, according to him, no government can meet the requirements claimed by the guidelines of natural rights (Sandel 35). Jeremy Bentham's "nonsense upon slits" argument against Natural rights believes that natural rights lacked any ontological foundation, except to the extent that they were a reflection of the personal desires of the people publicizing them.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

"Nonsense Upon Splits"

Bentham arrives at his utilitarian principle by a line of reasoning that believes that everyone likes pleasure but dislikes pain. Maximizing utility is a value not only adopted by individuals but also policymakers and legislators. Despite being firmly in support of individual legal rights, Bentham was opposed to the idea of natural law and rights, which are both considered to be God-given, which he termed as "nonsense upon splits." (Sandel 34). According to him, the role that reason played in people was to discover the things that increased happiness, since, God, a supernatural being of not only wisdom but of goodwill had reunited the laws of eternal justice with the satisfaction of each individual (Sandel 35). Thus, according to Bentham's idea of Utilitarianism, natural laws are "nonsense upon splits" because they originate from man's corrupt reasoning to satisfy their own wishes and are designed to encourage unrest, defiance, and revolution against the ruling governments.

Does Utilitarian Threaten Individual Rights?

John Stuart Mill tried to refute the objection that Utilitarianism cannot account for individual rights. He argued that far from being in tension with individual rights, the principle of utility was the justification for protecting rights. Although Mill accepted the utilitarian governance practiced by the radicals, he disagrees with the governance on the problem of the primary motivation of humans and the nature of their happiness (Sandel 52). He argues that everyone desires happiness, and sacrificing one's for the greater benefit of many is not right. Utilitarianism threatens individual rights because it founded on the belief of utility- where one single pain is less than the total pleasures of a larger population. Human rights are universal, meaning that human rights should, at all times, protect all humans. According to Mills, the primary motivation for individual rights is to ensure that no single person is subject to the larger plan of utility (Sandel 524). This philosophy means that a minority should not suffer the consequence of the greater number's benefits. Aforementioned, Bentham believes that rules and laws are created by humans to satisfy their own selves. However, Mill and others opposed to the utilitarian philosophy believe that it is essential that the government establishes laws that protect individuals from exploitation.

Utilitarian threatens individual rights because, according to Mills, happiness is desirable in itself and that everyone desires their own pleasure and not pain. Taking Sandel's case story about "Throwing Christians to Lions," a utilitarian believes that punishing if the Christians bring enough pleasure and increase morals in the society (33). However, the controversy of individual rights presents in the fear that such games of throwing people in the den of lions would worsen morals and breed more violence because prospective victims would be sure that one day they might also be thrown to the lions.

According to Utilitarian, if subjecting pain on one person is highly likely to save a nation, then the torture is justifiable. An example is when a suspected terrorist is captured, and torture is applied to him until he agrees to give the information he has that would save millions of people from dying. However, torture is also opposed because the information provided under duress may be unreliable. Therefore, consider it is vital to recognize that pain will be inflicted on the suspected individual, but the greater society is not made any safer. The calculations of numbers used by Utilitarian in controversial situations override the universal requirement about the respect of dignity and rights.

Utility weighs preferences without considering to make judgments on them. Each individual's preferences count in moral decision making. If a person has legal rights to a benefit, then the idea of greater happiness for a greater number is not justifiable. In the declaration for independence, changes were made to the constitution to include the concept of natural rights. Natural rights were ideas of English philosopher John Locker that were opposed to the ending oppressive rule (Schouls 29). Locke argued that individuals have fundamental rights that are given by God that cannot be taken away (Schouls 29). Such reasons include life, rights of liberty, and property. According to Locke, everyone has a duty and right to make decisions regarding their lives as long as they do not tamper with other people's freedom. However, utilitarians believe that in cases where the individual decision will deprive the larger society of a comfortable life, then the natural rights are just nonsense upon splits.

The utility principle denies the notion of justice. Sandel analyzes that Utilitarianism asserts the science of morality through measuring calculations of happiness (41). If human rights are unable to protect one innocent life from utilitarian calculations, then the motivation of the enforced rights is in question. The motive of safeguarding human rights comes from the fact that all human life is valuable, and the rights are not absolute but inalienable. According to Bentham, enlightening the public during the British rule about the importance of utility would overcome the conservative folly and promote general societal happiness. Utilitarianism believed that something right ought to be done in the pursuit of greater happiness. However, in making happiness a duty, utility calculations give room for violation of the individual rights of a person. Mill opposes utility calculations by claims that they only focus on short term effects rather than the long term moral consequences that the society is likely to face.

What If the Total Pleasure Is Important?

To what extent should people's basic rights be violated? The answer to this question is embedded in the hedonistic assumptions about human beings and their motivations. Hedonism is a concept that refers to many related philosophies about what is good for people, how they should behave and the motivation behind their actions. Mill denotes that an individual who does anything because it is a conventional practice makes no choice because he gains no pleasure in doing what is best (Sandel 52). However, utilitarianism believes that there are circumstances where those who oppose utility are forced to accept it. Bentham believes that to save a country for the benefit of its citizens some people like soldiers have to participate in a war. According to Bentham's ideas, pleasure is pleasure and there is nothing like a higher pleasure and pain is pain. The only primary way to judge how worse or good the results of an experience are, is through the amount and duration of pleasure or pain is produced. Total pleasure is important in situations such as saving a whole nation through torturing one terrorist suspect to speak the truth. Utilitarian advocates for total pleasure because it considers the happiness of people as it is without passing moral judgment on what they are worth.

In my opinion John Stuart Mill is right when he claims that basic individual rights should not be violated. Unlike Bentham, Mill believes that total pleasure is not only measured by the intensity of desires but also the quality of these desires (Sandel 53). In cases where lives are sacrificed to save many others, there is no certainty that the pain will all go away because it might make matters worse. In the case of torturing a terrorist, it is still dangerous to the country because when the other terrorists decide to launch another attack they will do it with more anger than the previous making the country vulnerable to more attacks. I don't disagree that pleasure is important; I only support that human rights are not absolute but inalienable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham's "nonsense upon slits" argument against natural rights, these rights are founded by people who want to make rules to fulfil their own personal desire. Utilitarian believes that sacrificing one happiness for the greater pleasure is important. However, opposes of utility such as John Stuart Mills believe that pleasure is not measured by quantity but by quality. Utilitarian rule is a threat to citizen's individual rights because it denies the notion of justice. The government should form laws that protect individual's rights because everyone has basic rights that no one can take away.

Work Cited

Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What's the right thing to do?. Macmillan, 2010.

Schouls, Peter A. Reasoned freedom: John Locke and enlightenment. Cornell University Press, 2018.