Jeremy Bentham’s Theory on Criminology and How It Addresses Criminal Deterrence
Jeremy Bentham’s article takes into consideration some of the most common things that everyone seems to overlook. Jeremy Bentham’s shares his theory on criminology, and how he believes people view the pleasures and the pains in the world. Bentham stated, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (Wright 2007; Pg. 17).
Bentham stressed that the world is controlled by both pleasure and pain, and that sometimes this can be a good thing or a bad. Just like pain and pleasure, there is a right and wrong, but these days, several people are all about personal gain, and always seem to overlook the pain that certain action
…show more content…
“The principle of utility is the foundation of the present work: it will be proper, therefore at the outset to give an explicit and determinate account of what is meant by it” (Wright 2007; Pg. 18). I feel like this is an important statement, for the fact, that everyone sets the ground rules of what is right and what is wrong, so why should someone not follow the rules? It is the society that says if something is approved (right) and what is not approved (wrong). In certain ways or situations, there can be a huge amount of pleasure and a great deal of pain, but it is truly up to the individual on which one they prefer. It is really easy for society to take control of certain individuals because several people just expect some kind of personal gain. In our world today, everyone mainly looks out for themselves, and really don’t worry about others. Bentham writes, “the interest of the community is one of the most general expressions that occur in the phraseology of morals: no wonder that the meaning of it is often lost” (Wright 2007; Pg. 18). I feel the importance in this, is that if everyone expects the world to work, then we have to work together to make sure it does, and this included taking care of others that are around …show more content…
This article is very good, and it shares many great points on why we have a criminal justice system in the first place.
Bentham states “In particular a measure of government, is supposed by a man to be conformable to the principle of utility, it may be convenient, for the purposed of discourse, to imagine a kind of law or dictate, called a law or dictate of utility” (Wright 2007; Pg. 19). By this Bentham means that it is easy to see and quite enjoyable that there is a law that covers the principle of utility, which allows everyone to know how when there is too much pleasure, and a lot of pain.
Bentham completely stressed how our world has two different views; one being pleasures and the other being pain. Everyone wants happiness and pleasure in their life, but sometimes receiving these wants ended up breaking the law. I feel like Bentham really opened eyes to see that everyone can be extremely greedy and selfish. Everyone is just looking out for themselves, and how they can have more of things and stuff they don’t need. Burglars, for instance, always want to have what other people have, and sometimes the burglars do it out of hate and for this they are filled with
exposes many of the problems that face the Criminal Justice system, as well as reveals several
Firstly, rules generate exceptionally more utility as they avert more disunity than they create. Having moral rules enhances utility by restricting people’s discretionary decisions which may lead to the suffering (disunity) of society and themselves. However, rules do sometimes allow discretion if having a rule in such circumstances results in a lack of maximisation of utility. Secondly, rule utilitarians do not dismiss concepts like justice, desert and rights; in fact, they accept such concepts but merely construe them from the standpoint of maximising utility. Pivotal is justice, desert and rights as they promote overall utility and well-being. Yet, people who acknowledge these concepts need to bear in mind that in certain circumstances, there is a need to abandon these concepts for individuals and prioritise the overall happiness of society in general.
Bentham's theory calls for "ultra-democracy", he believes that each individual has the right to decide what the public interests are. He insists that the interest of the community is nothing than the sum of the interests of several members who compose it. And to be able to understand any individual's interest, you should understand his preferences and the pleasure he seeks, which could be achieved through maximizing the preferences of the greater numbers. Bentham was objected to the "sinister interest" of the ruling elite, because he has a great believe that they were bound to pursue their own interest, which in turn the interest of the minority and could be conflicted to the rest of the society's interests. Therefore, the only remedy for this evil is to allow each person a share in choosing who will represent his or her interests in the parliament.
The goal is to achieve happiness and to avoid pain. He believed that a self-gratifying worth in acting derives from how a person feels, the length it last, the certainty, results that follow after taking actions, the benefits, and avoidance of any form of negative outcome. The methods of utility describe the meaning of moral obligation. This is refereed the happiness for all affected by the action taken. Bentham indicates that social policies are exanimated by the effectiveness it has on the general population that is involved. However, Mills utilitarianism on moral theory is an extension from Bentham’s view. He suggested some improvements to Bentham’s structure, meaning, and application (Philosophy Pages,
Throughout the essay, Mills speaks highly of utilitarianism as a way to construct a happier more stable society. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (Mill 137). The ideas of such political philosophers such as Mills and Bentham enticed the modern world at the time of their publication, including the people of the U.S. The concept of utilitarianism started shaping America many years ago, and it is important to realize its consequence in modern day
One definition of utilitarianism in general highlights the idea that an action is considered morally right or wrong depending on their results of the action (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). The idea highlights that the end results are the only factor that truly matter in the decision of whether or not an action is morally right or wrong(“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Utilitarianism can be split into two more detailed perspectives which are act and rule utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism focus is on an individual case’s outcome (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Rule Utilitarianism looks at the action and its outcome in general (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Jeremy Bentham is associated with utilitarianism and his view of hedonism which is in response to the question of what is considered good in the world (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Hedonism focuses on pleasure or happiness as being the only good (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Pleasure and happiness are considered goods themselves since compared to friends or families that can produce such valuables as pleasure and happiness (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). This means that the gift of happiness one that cannot produce anything that would be of greater value. The views associated with hedonism have been rejected in cases since they only considered the
John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism is a moral consequentialist view that maintains actions are good if they lead to happiness and bad if they lead to suffering. The same rationale can be applied to obstruction—whatever prevents suffering is morally good, and whatever prevents happiness is morally bad. It should be noted Mill characterizes happiness as “pleasure and the absence of pain” (104). He also puts forth that intellectual pleasures—such as the satisfaction that comes with finishing a paper, or having a successful long-term friendship—are better than the animalistic pleasures taken in eating or sex. Proponents of this moral theory believe the most moral action is one that maximizes total happiness for the greatest amount of people.
John Stuart Mill suggests that a person’s ethical decision-making process should be based solely upon the amount of happiness that the person can receive. Although Mill fully justifies himself, his approach lacks certain criteria for which happiness can be considered. Happiness should be judged, not only by pleasure, but by pain as well. This paper will examine Mill’s position on happiness, and the reasoning behind it. Showing where there are agreements and where there are disagreements will critique the theory of Utilitarianism. By showing the problems that the theory have will reveal what should make up ethical decision-making. John Stuart Mill supports and explains his reasoning in his book, Utilitarianism. Mill illustrates the guidelines of his theory. Mill defines utilitarianism as the quest for happiness. His main point is that one should guide his or her judgements by what will give pleasure. Mill believes that a person should always seek to gain pleasure and reject pain. Utilitarianism also states that the actions of a person should be based upon the “greatest happiness principle”. This principle states that ethical actions command the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill further explores the need for pleasure by noting “a being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy.” . He acknowledges that some pleasures are more alluring than others are. He adds to this by making known that when placing value in things to calculate pleasure, not only quantity important but quality as well. Mill’s criteria for happiness is easily understood, some statements that he gives are questionable. John Stuart Mill plainly laid out what he believes that the basis for ethical decision-making. First, the pursuit of pleasure is directly related to happiness. This idea can be easily accepted. It is natural for a person to focus his goals on things that will bring him pleasure. It would be absurd if someone’s goal in life was to be poor and starving. This being said, it does not mean that people are only happy due wealth but that no one’s goals are focused on poverty. Although there are many issues that can be agreeable with Mill, there are problems that exist with his theory of utilitarianism.
Jeremy Bentham, one of the founders of Utilitarianism, believed his philosophy could provide for the “greatest happiness of the greatest number of people”. However benign it may sound, at the heart of Utilitarianism is a cold, teleological process which reduces happiness to a mere commodity. It is even worse that Saul Alinsky would extend this philosophy to a point where the truth becomes relative, justice becomes a tool of those powerful enough to wield it, and any means are justified to reach one’s desired ends.
In his essay “Anarchical Fallacies,” Jeremy Bentham argues that “Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible [i.e. inalienable] rights, rhetorical nonsense,—nonsense upon stilts” Bentham supports his conclusion that not only that these ideas are meaningless, but are also quite dangerous and that natural law is simply nonsense by stating the following reasons:
Today our world is filled with crime. The people committing these crimes must have a consequence for their illegal actions. The system in place to keeping everything fair and safe is called the criminal justice system. This was put in place to ensure there is fairness and justice served to people who break the laws set up by the government.
Act utilitarianism contends that we should act to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This view could endorse actions such as sentencing an innocent man to death if this would produce the most amount of pleasure. Utilitarianism holds that the standard of morality is the promotion of everyone’s best interests. As formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, this view holds that only pleasure or happiness has intrinsic value. More modern utilitarians hold that other things besides happiness have value, such as power or beauty. Our textbook considers only traditional utilitarianism and uses “good” to mean pleasure. Bentham held that happiness could be calculated using a hedonistic calculus, which determined
Thus, the simple calculation of the “greatest amount of happiness” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 55) to be experienced by the greatest number of people, proved difficult to accept by the opponents of utilitarianism. This writer, for one, would argue that although happiness was touted by the utilitarian as the intrinsic good to be desired, the mode and object of happiness varied and viewed differently by individuals. As Mill elucidated
Bentham’s Utilitarianism sees the highest good as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham believed that by adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each possible act we should be able to choose the good thing to do. Happiness equaled pleasure minus pain. Bentham provided a way of measuring pleasure and pain, he called it the hedonic calculus. There are seven criteria to this calculus. First being the intensity being measured – how strong is the pleasure. The second criteria, duration – how long will the pleasure last. The third, certainty – how likely or unlikely is the pleasure. Fourth, Propinquity - How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain. The fifth, fecundity – what is the likely hood that a succession of pleasure will follow. The sixth criteria, purity – What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pain. Lastly, is the extent – how many people will be affected. This calculus gave Bentham a method of testing whether an action is morally right in that if it was good it would result in the most pleasurable outcome, having weighed up all the elements. These factors weigh up the potential amount of pleasure or pain which might arise from moral actions to decide which would be the best option to take. Ideally this formula should determine which act has the best tendency and is therefore
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular