bentham and say

The Greatest Happiness Principle and

the Principle of Enlightened Interest:

Jean-Baptiste Say and

Jeremy Bentham

Marco E.L. GuidiUniversity of Pisa

Department of Economics

1815-1819. Jean-Baptiste Say’s lectures at the Athénée of Paris

Say, J.-B. (2003a), Leçons d’économie politique, texte établi et présenté par G. Jacoud et Ph. Steiner, in Id., Oeuvres complètes, Vol. 4, Paris: Economica.

Two sessions (4 bis and 5, 1818-19) concern the “principle of utility”

“Essai sur le principe d'utilité”, in Mélanges et correspondances d'économie politique, Ch. Comte ed. (1833), projected as 6th part of Cours complet d'économie politique pratique (1829-30). Probably written at the latter date.

5th March 1829 Letter to Etienne Dumont (1759-1829)

Say asks him to write an essay that should replace his draft.

Dumont hesitates forced to renounce because of health reasons (letter of 21st July)

Two arguments:

1st argument. The principle of utility is not an egoistic philosophy, since it does not prescribe to individuals to follow up their immediate self-interest in every circumstance

“the man who lives in society, when he first seeks his personal utility, disregarding what is profitable to the others, is guilty of egoism; and this is at the same time a vice and bad calculation” (Say 2003a: 131)

“But the social man, who measures the estimation he makes of things on the more or less utility they have for man, that is to say, who measures this estimation on the greatest happiness for the greatest number, is eminently virtuous; and [...] not only his principles reveal a praiseworthy sentiment, but on the whole they produce the most real and most durable good, both for the humanity, and for the nation, and for himself” (Say 2003a: 131)

2nd argument. Subscribing to the principle of utility or greatest happiness principle (hereafter: GHP) is the best way of pursuing one’s well understood interest or enlightened interest (hereafter: EI)

Vice = bad calculation Enlightenment

It is of the utmost importance “to take cognizance of the consequences of things [..]. Therefore, enlightenment is necessary to morals” (Say 2003a: 134)

Consequences of these two arguments:

Political economy

“... practical politics shows us the chain of causes and effects in the political order; political economy [...] the chain of causes and effects relative to the interests of man in society” (Say 2003a: 367)

A word of caution:

• Say's argument: subscribing to the GHP is the best way to pursue EI

• This argument does not necessarily entail the reverse: following EI necessarily produces the greatest happiness of all.

• Nevertheless, Say often insists that there is a large identity between general utility and individual EI.

Questions raised by Say’s arguments:

1. is (enlightened) self-interest a sufficient condition for acting in accordance with the GHP?

2. Is the GHP equivalent to another principle, the “principle of enlightened interest” (hereafter: EIP)?

Structure of the paper:

1. a theoretical comparison between the GHP and the EIP

2. A comparison between Say’s and Bentham’s arguments about the correspondence between GHP and EIP

1. The Greatest Happiness 1. The Greatest Happiness Principle and the Enlightened Principle and the Enlightened

Interest PrincipleInterest Principle

Say:Say: The GHP ultimately coincides with EI EIP

John Stuart MillJohn Stuart MillUtilitarianismUtilitarianism (1861):(1861):

The GHP demands enlightened self-sacrifice

J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 1861:

“The utilitarian morality does recognise in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted. The only self-renunciation which it applauds, is devotion to the happiness, or to some of the means of happiness, of others; either of mankind collectively, or of individuals within the limits imposed by the collective interests of mankind”.

A definition of EIP:

1. [empirical statement] Individuals normally act according to self-interest;

2. [empirical statement] Self-interest is either short-minded (taking account of direct consequences of actions only) or enlightened (taking account of both direct and remote consequences of actions);

3. [normative principle] Individuals should aim at their EI: only by acting in this way they satisfy their ultimate self-interest.

Individuals must evaluate their EIIndividuals must evaluate their EI

J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) chapter 4:

7 “circumstances”:1.1. IntensityIntensity

2.2. DurationDuration

3.3. Certainty or uncertaintyCertainty or uncertainty

4.4. Remoteness or propinquityRemoteness or propinquity

5.5. FecundityFecundity

6.6. PurityPurity

7.7. ExtentExtent

Only concerning the agent

Irrelevant to EIP

Example: I want to obtain satisfaction for a damage Example: I want to obtain satisfaction for a damage produced by my neighbour due to carelessnessproduced by my neighbour due to carelessness

Case 1. Evaluation of consequences under EIP

AlternativeImmediate consequences to the agent: net pleasure of satisfaction

Remote consequences to the agent: damages caused by counter-measures

Balance of immediate and remote consequences to the agent

A. Punch 10 -15 -5

B. Not acting -5 0 -5

C. Law-suit 5 0 5

“Purity” dimension

Case 2. Evaluation of immediate consequences under GHP


Immediate consequences to the neighbour: pains generated by the agent's actions

Aggregate balance (immediate consequences to both individuals involved)

A. Punch 10 -11 -1


C. Law-suit 5 -5 0

However, consequences on my neighbour happiness (« However, consequences on my neighbour happiness (« extent extent dimensiondimension ») are not considered under EIP ») are not considered under EIP they are they are considered under GHPconsidered under GHP

The prescription is identical under EI and GHP

Case 3. Evaluation of both immediate and remote consequences under GHP

Alternative Immediate consequences to the agent: net pleasure of satisfaction



Remote consequences to third parties (externalities)

Total balance (immediate and remote consequences to all individuals involved)

A. Punch 10 -11 -15 -20 -36

B. Not acting

-5 0 0 0 -5

C. Law-suit 5 -5 0 0 0

However, considering the high transaction costs of a law-suit (or any additional trouble to the plaintiff) might turn the balance in favour of alternative A. This is not the case if we consider indirect consequences

Case 4. Evaluation of consequences under EIP adding a fourth alternative



Balance of immediate and remote consequences to the agent

A. Punch 10 -15 -5


C. Law-suit 5 0 5

D. Scandal 10 0 10

The same line of conduct is recommended under both EI and GHP, although with different motivations. But this is not necessarily true in all cases:

Case 5. Evaluation of consequences under GHP adding a fourth alternative




Remote consequences to third parties (externalities)

Total balance (immediate and remote consequences to all individuals involved)

A. Punch 10 -11 -15 -20 -36

B. Not acting

-5 0 0 0 -5

C. Law-suit 5 -5 0 0 0

D. Scandal 10 -10 0 -20 -20

EIP recommends alternative D. However this alternative is not recommended by GHP:

EIP and GHP:EIP and GHP:

- Both are consequentialist ethical theories

- Both are welfarist ethical theories

- They often lead to convergent choices

- Different circumstances taken into account

- Different value criteria

- They may lead to different choices

- GHP: altruistic and universalistic: self-sacrifice admitted

- EIP: egoistic and non-universalistic: self-preference and (only) unintended positive benefits on others

2. Say and Bentham on general 2. Say and Bentham on general utility and individual interestsutility and individual interests

Say argues that it is reasonable for an individual to choose the GHP as a rule of action.

Acting according to the GHP is in the EI of an individual

There is a convergence between the GHP and the EIP.

Enlarged EIP (EEIP):

- it is possible to observe a comprehensive EIP only by adopting the GHP

Objections:

1. Convergence is not always possible (see sect. 1 above)

2. Convergence is more probable if morality is limited (as Says seems to believe) to the rules of prudence and justice.

3. But the GHP demands « benevolence » and self-sacrifice. It would be paradoxical to argue that these virtues are in the EI of an individual.

Alternative interpretation: one of the two principles is the ethical rule and the other a method of deliberation.

EEIP 1:

(1) Moral principle: in order to be ethically correct and obligatory an action must be guided by the EIP;

(2) Method of deliberation: since it is impossible to foresee the reactions of others to our choices, the GHP provides the best guide to action. Every action that satisfies the GHP is probably the surest way to accomplish the EIP.

Objections:

1. GHP is problematic as method of deliberation

2. This interpretation does not capture Say’s recommendation of GHP as an ethical principle

Thus the correct interpretation could be the reverse:

EEIP 2:

(1) Moral principle: in order to be ethically correct and obligatory an action must be guided by the GHP;

(2) Method of deliberation: since individuals are normally guided by their personal interest, the surest way to realise the GHP is to enlighten the people about the consequences of their actions, suggesting them to adopt the EIP as a rule for deliberation.

Objection:

- Deliberations based on EIP do not always lead to GHP (see sect. 1 and above)

Another possible explanation:

• This explanation is grounded on a passage in which Say argues that individuals are legitimated to abstain from sacrificing (even) their (enlightened) interest to the general interest of society:

“We may raise doubts on the maxim that general interest, supposing it loyally ascertained, should always prevail on private interests. This maxim could induce to sacrifice a private innocent individual to the interest of a guilty public, and lead us back to those barbarian ages in which some nations offered human victims to Heaven in order to endear themselves to it (Say 2003a: 127)”.

“Paretian-liberal”, anti-totalitarian interpretation

EEIP 2.1 (EIP-limited GHP):

(1.1) Moral principle: in order to be ethically correct an action must be guided by the GHP;

(1.2) Moral principle: it is legitimate to refuse to sacrifice one's EI to general happiness; the GHP is not obligatory and it is limited by the EIP;

(2) Method of deliberation: since individuals are normally guided by their personal interest, the surest way to realise the GHP limited by the EIP is to enlighten the people about the consequences of their actions, suggesting them to adopt the EIP as a rule for deliberation.

Objections:

1. Principle 1.2 provides no unique solution in case of conflict over the distribution of scarce resources;

2. The happiness value of EIPs combinations may be lower than that generated by the GHP (no enlightened self-sacrifice)

Say probably believes that no total (or radical) sacrifice of some individuals can really maximise aggregate utility.

« Invisible Hand » + EI view: a spontaneous order of individuals pursuing their EI generates the highest aggregate happiness.

Say’s political economy

However EEIP 2.1. is not a consistent ethical principle:

- (1.1) GHP is not obligatory;- (1.2) EIP dominates over GHP.- thus (1.1) is redundant

Despite his allegiance to the GHP, Say propounds EIP (or EIP1) as an ethical principle.

Jeremy Bentham

1. his definition of the GHP prescribes to maximise aggregate utility and presupposes ability to detach oneself from self-interest.

2. the “self-preference principle” formulated in Constitutional Code (1830) is a prudential “as if” clause valid only in legislation (≅ Hume).

3. in Deontology (1814-1831) benevolence is contemplated among motivations.

4. in Deontology Bentham works out a strategy based on the education of interests, but in order to make benevolence, not EI possible.

a. sufficient condition: the positive “marginal utility” of universal benevolence. The sight of a stranger “in a state of apparent comfort” is gratifying for an individual, and although the intensity of such a benevolent sentiment diminishes as the number of persons involved increases, any addition in the number generates an increase of benevolence (Bentham 1814-1831: 129).

b. necessary condition “By every act of virtuous beneficence which a man exercises, he contributes to a sort of fund – a sort of Saving Bank – a sort of fund of general Good-will, out of which services of all sorts may be looked for as about to flow on occasion out of other hands into his” (ibid.: 184).

c. “virtuous beneficence” means beneficence inspired by benevolence.

Conclusions

EIP:

- it ignores enlightened self-sacrifice to the general interest;

- it does not prescribe supererogatory actions, or it prescribes them only moderately;

- it is potentially more liberal albeit less consistent than the GHP.

bentham and say

Documents