Bentham's Utilitarianism and the Ethics of Punishment

Introduction: Bentham's Utilitarian Framework

In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham outlines his theory of utilitarianism, which includes a substantial discussion of the proper role of punishment in any system of justice. Bentham argues that law and society should be organized around what he calls "the principle of utility," which, among other things, leads to standards for the application of punishment that attempt to preclude the kind of retributive punishment that has been common throughout human history. Examining the principle of utility and some of its implications for society helps to demonstrate why Bentham's theory of utilitarian punishment is perhaps one of the most ethical modes of punishment ever devised, and how far modern societies still have to go toward attaining this far more beneficial form of justice.

Before considering Bentham's interpretation of punishment and its role in society, it is helpful to first discuss the principle of utility in general. Bentham argues that "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure," and while this is an oversimplification that cannot account for some of the nuances of human experience, it is nonetheless a useful way of distilling human experience into those elements most important when considering the role of society in regard to punishment and justice (Bentham 51). From this initial observation, Bentham defines the principle of utility as "that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or oppose that happiness" (Bentham 52).

The Principle of Utility and Human Behavior

Bentham proposes this principle as the standard for judging every action, whether committed by an individual or a community, because he recognizes that nearly all previous standards for justice and punishment are based on largely arbitrary rules, often born out of religious belief or other non-empirical ideologies. Thus, Bentham grounds his theory in this principle to provide a relatively simple, concrete means of judging every possible action — one that does not depend on the dictates of scripture, but rather on the most basic dichotomy of human experience. The truly transformative nature of this project becomes clear when one considers the implications of applying the principle of utility to punishment, but first one must consider Bentham's interpretation of human behavior in general.

Bentham views all human behavior within the framework of the principle of utility, and as such argues that any given behavior can be analyzed "according to the sum total of its consequences: that is, according to the difference between the sum of such as are good, and the sum of such as are evil" (Bentham 54). Some might claim that this represents a kind of moral relativism, because it does not declare certain acts unequivocally evil, but rather holds that the specific consequences of any given act are what determine its moral worth. However, because Bentham's argument is grounded in the principle of utility, it actually provides a more robust, coherent, and consistent means of evaluating human behavior than anything offered by preexisting religious or moral codes.

Punishment as Inherent Evil

Recognizing that the principle of utility offers a consistent approach to human behavior reveals just how arbitrary preexisting standards of judgment and punishment are. These older standards claim to define a number of absolutes regarding human behavior that are not borne out in the reality of human experience. Having understood how Bentham's principle of utility reframes the consideration of human behavior in general, one can begin to appreciate his interpretation of punishment.

Bentham's principle of utility leads him to an observation that one might hope would be obvious at this point in human history, but which has not been effectively embraced by society: "all punishment is mischief: all punishment in itself is evil. Upon the principle of utility, if it ought at all to be admitted, it ought only to be admitted in as far as it promises to exclude some greater evil" (Bentham 57). A look at the justice systems of most major countries — from the United States to China — reveals that punishment is not treated as a last resort, but rather as a pillar of society, regardless of whether those punishments actually succeed in preventing greater evils.

For example, proponents of the death penalty argue for its continued use even though numerous studies have shown its general deterrent effect to be minimal at best. Similarly, there are those who argue for the authorized use of torture against individuals suspected of possessing crucial information, even though it has long been established that information obtained through torture more often reflects what the torturer wants to hear rather than anything grounded in reality.

Conclusion: Utilitarianism and Modern Justice

Jeremy Bentham's theory of utilitarianism includes important developments in the consideration of punishment — developments that have not been sufficiently adopted in contemporary society. In particular, Bentham's construction of a consistent, humane standard for evaluating human behavior stands as one of the most important contributions in the history of philosophy and criminal justice. Sadly, standards for punishment and justice are still too often based on arbitrary notions of right and wrong, with little attention paid to the potential damage caused by certain forms of punishment. By considering the implications of applying the principle of utility to the administration of punishment, one can see how Bentham's theory offers quite possibly the most ethically sound standard for ensuring the harmony of human society while protecting the autonomy of the individual.