We must decide the question: how can social policy achieve favorable conditions for the happiness of each individual in the world and achieve the happiness of everyone. We have already spoken about the harmony of interests that Bentham resorted to in his policy to resolve the question just posed. What are the specific political forms of conditions under which everyone can achieve their highest happiness along with others. Bentham's political views, as it turns out, were fully defined only in the second half of his journalistic career. They can be reduced to a few propositions expressed by Bentham in his precise and concise style. And they are in great connection with its general formula and with the basic individualistic-utilitarian principles. In the very dflf: if, despite Bentham’s all softening, the guiding principle remains the egoistic interest, i.e., the happiness of the individual, in relation to which the individual is the supreme judge, then from this principle, with a mechanical view of the human association, go a logically continuous path to the highest political position of Bentham: “the only thing that has and can be Let's hear about universal happiness - this is a democratic rule,” that is, this kind of rule in which everyone’s voice can and should be heard, which is more important than the question of the greatest amount of happiness - which is the purpose of any legislation, in Bentham’s opinion. In connection with this and the principles mentioned, the participation of each
Yes, in legislation it may be, subject to universality, `
equal and secret vote. In order for the legislative body to be more consistent with the wishes of the people and public opinion, to which Bentham attaches great importance, Bentham recommends annual votes and annual parliaments.
1) Main ones. Bentham's political works cover the period 1808-1827.
"area"
E O E PZ ZE
ments, denying, by virtue of their democratic principle, the need for a chamber of lords 1). Believing that the inalienable, natural rights of the doctrine of liberalism do not make it possible to determine the subject of state sovereignty, Bentham thinks that such a sovereign is the whole people, and not the majority of them, at best. The features of Bentham's political concept considered so far paint him as the antipode of Hobbes. But from the beginning, there is a point and a point, it must be said, the main one, where Bentham remains in line with the English tradition, the interpreter of which was the creator of Levaoan - namely, the recognition of the omnipotence of the state. But in Bentham such power is embodied in parliament - the exponent of the wishes of the people and the representative of their interests. If in this point Bentham agrees with Hobbes and apparently deals a terrible blow to his individualistic radicalism, then in this same point about the autocratic sovereignty of the people he reminds us of the political concept of the author of "Copyogath Zos". In some of Rousseau's political formulas one can substitute, instead of the concepts of freedom and equality, the principles of pleasure and suffering. Rousseau believed that everyone, betraying his freedom to the entire people of which he is a member, gives it into private hands, the only ones capable of protecting it from despotism; this seemed to be a necessary way out for the formation of a political association on truly democratic principles. Likewise, Bentham considered it necessary to entrust the concern for maximizing the happiness of the individual to the legislative representative of the people - the almighty parliament, the universal creator and interpreter of the norms necessary for this maximization. For Rousseau, as well as for Bentham, whose meaning in English literature was very similar to that of “Sostai Osta” in French, the political situation was completely unclear.
1) See about this and the following questions, Vol. 1 pp. 345-411. (Tasidche 4ez azzet vez roiaiez ab6ibgashez). 21*