a problem that can be addressed in a feasible manner by Bentham's successor and student, John Autumn Mill. (The problem of the rights of a minority oppressed by a numerical majority is a problem of the democratic concept of the state). In his judgments on this issue, Bentham was guided by an optimistic mood, which we noted in our time in Rousseau. Both of them asked the question, the first about the freedoms, the second about the happiness of the individual: how can happiness and freedom be subject to greater limitations for the individual than is necessary for equal enjoyment and abuse on the part of other individuals? Both of them answered negatively to this question. By promoting such restriction, each member of the legislative body would, in essence, be going against his own freedom and his own interest; and according to Rousseau and Bentham it is to counteract the character of the individual; according to the view of the first, - reason; according to the view of the second, - the properties of the individual to react with pleasure and suffering. Maximizing freedom was Rousseau's dream; maximizing happiness was Bentham's ideal. Rousseau's dream, it must be admitted, reflected the metaphysical and idealistic concept of the rational individual; Bentham's ideal is emphasized by the practical and utilitarian mood that was created by the idea of the empirical individual.
If we remember, Rousseau criticized the British for releasing power from their hands by the act of electing representatives to parliament. In some places in Bentham’s writings, despite all the concreteness of his thinking, it is clear that the mystical thought about the supremacy of the people did not leave him, and especially when he opposed his radicalism to natural-legal liberalism. He also optimistically believed that Parliament would not violate the principle of maximizing happiness, and, therefore (one should not lose sight of his hypothesis about identity and the idea of goodwill for one minute)
E O IE. And I
under no circumstances should we diminish the share of this happiness accruing to each individual, as well as the share of security ') necessary for everyone to enjoy their happiness.
The guarantee of individual freedom must be sought there,
toya
Where is the English lawyer moving on to discussing the institution of executive power. He does not agree with Montesquieu's theories about the division of power, which has the goal of opposing the despotic. absolutism ^). He says that an agreement is always possible between representatives of the authorities in the goals of the usurpash. As a practically effective guarantee against the abuse of executive power over the individual, Bentham put forward limited competence to a minimum. It is possible to give her less money, to create legal and moral responsibility for her. In particular, Bentham has great hopes for the last government, demanding the widest publicity for all ministers. Bentham believes that, under conditions of openness, a highly developed public opinion is the best counter to all abuses of executive power. In particular, if we take into account that every year, through the ballot, relatively quick pressure can be exerted on the government, if it is truly founded in society.”
In conclusion, we must say about Bentham that, basing his political philosophy on the principle of individual and overall happiness for the members of the state, trying to find in human nature the properties of individuality and, with | help observed, create the understanding of the empirical individual, | Bentham only partially fulfilled his plans. Dj- | Indeed, one cannot refuse him the fact that he is represented by not about the individual concrete and the real is understood! I am abstract | man naturally - legal, revolutionary doctrine; what s:]
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
— 418 he strives for observation, i.e., in this way, collecting material to resolve the problem of the individual’s relationship to the state, already in line with the positive direction of the 19th century. But if the concept of natural and inalienable rights includes people and is a metaphysical theory, then a similar reproach is possible for Bentham’s principle of happiness, i.e., the predominance of pleasure in the life balance of an individual.
It is enough to ask the questions: where did an ancient citizen, a medieval monk or a knight, a humanist and a Protestant find his happiness, in order to see how much rationality lies in the premises of Benthamism. And this creator had to instinctively turn to his scholastic tables and calalogues in order to fill with this process the lack of definition that, naturally, was created in the era of Bentham, the so central Bacon, Linnaeus, etc., due to the insufficiency of positive scientific material.