depending on the number of people." The link between these two limits is | the beginning and end of all Bentham's political and moral creations is Bentham's controversial hypothesis, which he has in common with | liberal individualistic school of economists (Bentham’s enthusiastic review of Adam Smith is known) - a hypothesis about the identity and harmony of the interests of the individual and the group). This hypothesis has been thoroughly criticized many times. It is with the help of her, as well as with the help of | the progressive idea of favor (see T. [.-102). Bentham creates a connecting link between the egoistic “interest” of the individual and the social benefit, the happiness of other individuals. With the help of this link he makes an attempt to soften the selfish individualism of his system. Thus, the starting point of Bentham’s reasoning is not the abstract concept of the individual, but the understanding that he tries to fill it with empirical content. | Bentham's individualism, thanks to this, seems to have transitioned | cit from subjective-rashonalistic and metaphysical soil to empirical and positive soil. Personal interest Each person is an actual unit, one of the components of the total
| happiness. In turn, total happiness is the amount received | derived from the addition of the mentioned units 2). By increasing the happiness 3) p of an individual, we increase the amount of overall happiness. By increasing p overall happiness, taking into account the hypothesis of identity of interests, we increase the happiness of the individual. The proof of this position, as well as the proof of the mentioned hypothesis, is difficult for Bentham. In such reasoning, based on b 1) See T. [. 223 —24 p. T. Sh Beovyuzhe st. 2. 359. rub.
2) That is, pleasure prevails over suffering in the personal moral balance.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
- 10 on the ariometic method, Bentham asked us to remember his explanatory commentary on the principle of utility or happiness. When speaking about increasing general happiness, it is meant that everyone is considered one; no one can be considered more than one. Hence the recognized principle of equality between individuals. And this principle, in turn, justifies everyone’s equal right to happiness, which, according to many utilitarians, presupposes an equal right to all means of achieving happiness, i.e., in other words, also to those means that the state is obliged to provide to its member, and the citizen has the right to demand them from the state, which constitutes it, that is, the individual, the right. In Bentham’s above-mentioned propositions we see a purely individualistic and, as it were, empirical in nature, theory of understanding the state 1).
The goal of the legislator is the same as that of the moralist: to maximize happiness. As for explaining the task of the first of them, we must recall Bentham’s view of the law as a norm emanating from state power. The doctrine of natural and inalienable rights of man and citizen had, among other things, the significance that it contrasted the mentioned rights with an insurmountable predicament for state power, guarantees of freedom and independence of the individual. Dismissing natural rights, Bentham seemed to betray the freedom and independence of the individual into the unlimited power of the state, as the only source of positive law, the only one recognized by Bentham. Thus, the individual seemed to be helpless before the omnipotence of the state, and Bentham’s reactionary attitude towards political individualism seemed obvious: Bentham did not see any barriers in chimerical natural rights, - the creation of political dreamers,
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
using various metaphors that have no real meaning').
Bentham calls this the same ipsedictism in politics as, in his opinion, the theories of sympathy, antipathy, asceticism, etc. were in morality.