Shadow of great britain

In the lecture hall, Bentham and Arthur sat next to each other on the left and right.

Bentham glanced at Arthur's heavy dark circles, smiled and shook his head: "You don't seem to be in good condition."

Arthur smiled: "Maybe. I still remember that I discussed with you before about the deontological principles advocated by Kant and the consequentialist principles advocated by you.

The deontology advocated by Kant believes that whether something is right or wrong, or whether it should be done, does not depend on the consequences it will bring, but whether the behavior itself conforms to moral norms.

The consequentialism you advocate believes that whether something is right or wrong, or whether it should be done, in the final analysis, we must consider what consequences the behavior has brought or may bring, what kind of impact it will have, and how it will affect the world around us. What changes have occurred. "

Bentham asked: "Have your views changed now?"

Arthur nodded first, but then shook his head: "It has changed, but it has not changed. I think what Kant said makes sense, but I think what you said makes sense as well. That's why, you will I don’t think I’m looking good right now.”

Bentham held his cane with both hands and stared up at the dome of the lecture hall: "Let me guess, you are a policeman now, so what kind of difficult case have you encountered? Don't know how to deal with the prisoner? Or, You don’t quite understand some of the laws being implemented and don’t agree with their legislative principles?”

Arthur nodded and said: "You are indeed a great wise man. You guessed it right. I want to hang a group of people, but according to the current law, they may not be able to die."

Bentham shook his head and said: "I am not a wise man, I am just a utilitarian, I just hope to solve social problems.

Like I told you before, utility is not a bad thing. The differences between my views and those of Kant mainly lie in two aspects.

Kant believed that people are rational people, so the moral concepts they agree with are also rational.

But when it comes to the specific implementation level, he looks at it in a perceptual way. He believes that since people are rational, there is nothing wrong as long as their behavior conforms to moral norms.

The difference between him and me is that I think people are emotional, and human behavior is entirely motivated by happiness and pain.

Mankind has placed himself entirely under two masters - pain and pleasure. They instruct us what we should do and decide what we are going to do. They determine the standards of right and wrong and the causal connections. Everything we think, say, and do is governed by them.

I think people are emotional, but when it comes to actual implementation, I look at it from a rational perspective.

There is no difference in quality between happiness and pain, only in total quantity.

Therefore, the principle of utilitarianism is to maximize the total amount of joy and happiness for all mankind, reduce the total amount of pain, and ultimately make the total amount of happiness far exceed pain. "

Arthur asked: "Theory always sounds wonderful, but you should know that during actual implementation, whether it is Kant's theory or your theory, there will be some problems."

"Of course." Bentham laughed and said, "Didn't your question of whether the train crushed one person or five people put me in trouble?"

Arthur asked: "Do you have an answer now?"

Bentham imitated Arthur's actions just now, nodded first, and then shook his head: "Yes, but no."

"How do you say this?"

Bentham said: "Because whether you look at it from Kant's point of view or from my point of view, it is wrong to flip the track switch and crush someone to death.

Even from a utilitarian standpoint, this is not a simple math question of choosing one or five.

You should have read my book. When I described human happiness and pain in the book, I marked its four sources and binding forces, namely natural binding force, political binding force, moral binding force and religious binding force.

Only by considering the issue from the perspective of political binding force can one come to the conclusion that five is greater than one, and thus choose to crush one person to death instead of five.

But when it comes to killing people, whether from a natural, moral or religious perspective, one person and five people are actually the same. Killing someone is killing someone, there is no difference.

When the public knows that someone was forced to choose between killing one person and five people, they will not feel happy because that person chose to kill one person, nor will they feel happy because that person did not flip the switch and five people were crushed to death by the train. And even sadder.

Killing five people causes the same amount of public pain as killing one person.

Those who interpret it as a simple math problem are deliberately muddying the waters of such social issues to make them seem deeper.

Instead of dwelling on the issue of running a train over people, consider why people are tied up and placed on the tracks.

And we are making amendments from a legislative perspective to reduce or even eliminate the occurrence of such situations as much as possible.

Arthur, do you know what utilitarianism is? This is utilitarianism. Focusing on solving problems is utilitarianism.

This is a practical philosophy. Utilitarianism strives to provide a theoretical system with guiding standards for legislators. I am tired of those endless arguments. I just want to solve the problem. "

When Arthur heard this, he seemed to gradually understand.

“So, utilitarianism is a requirement for legislators?”

Bentham nodded and said: "Of course. Do you still remember the four legislative principles of the utilitarians?"

As a London University graduate, Arthur certainly remembered important discussions in Bentham's work.

He said: “First, the final standard of punishment is determined based on the consequences of the criminal act.

Second, the standard for judging whether consequences are good or bad is the change in happiness and pain of all relevant parties, that is, the change in each individual's feelings caused by criminal behavior serves as the basis for moral judgment.

Third, the happiness and pain of all relevant parties should be considered equally. This standard does not change due to distance or closeness, nor does it change due to objective conditions such as power, status, wealth, etc. Everyone involved should be considered according to the same standard.

Fourth, written legislation should pursue the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness comes from four aspects: nature, politics, morality, and religion. "

Bentham smiled and patted Arthur on the shoulder: "Young man, ordinary people can't tell the difference between legislation and ethics. But you are a law enforcer, you must distinguish clearly.

Although both legislation and ethics aim at happiness, not everything that violates ethics should be punished.

All punishment is an evil in itself, and if it should be allowed to be used it can only be because it threatens to exclude greater evils.

When punishing, four purposes should be achieved as much as possible.

The first principle is innocence, that is, the purpose of legislation is to prevent the occurrence of any crime as much as possible.

If this kind of crime cannot be eliminated, then the second principle should be adopted, using different punishment methods to force such criminals to choose less harmful crimes instead of more harmful crimes when committing crimes.

For example, although we cannot ban the crime of robbery caused by property, we sentence the crime of robbery to exile, and sentence the crime of murder to hanging. We use different punishment methods to achieve the result that the criminal will not commit murder because of robbery.

The third is to stop crime and reduce the social damage caused by criminal behavior and punishment methods as much as possible.

The fourth is to cherish punishment and act with minimum expenditure. "

At this point, Bentham saw that Arthur seemed to be stuck in struggling contemplation. He smiled and said: "Arthur, you have to understand the law, especially the flaws of the law.

There will never be a perfect law in this world, but we can pursue a perfect legal system.

This may be the meaning of people like you existing in this world. "

Arthur raised his head and looked at him: "Mr. Bentham..."

Bentham said: "I am already old and have only a few years to live. But you are different. You are still young. You must be strong to survive in this world.

You did very well that day in the Magistrates Court. What you may not know is that I have also written several reviews for you in the Westminster Review.

Although you may not like it, this is all I can do now as an old man.

Young man, you always said that you didn't agree with me, but I didn't tell you that I, an old man, agree with you very much.

I often say, in a government governed by the rule of law, what is the motto of a good citizen? That is ‘strict obedience, free criticism’.

I can't think of a more standard practice than that speech you gave in the Magistrates' Court.

Many people tell me that they understand utilitarianism, but in my opinion, they understand shit about utilitarianism!

They only remember that I said, "The greatest happiness of most people is the standard for judging right and wrong," but they forgot that I also said, "It is futile to talk about social interests without understanding what personal interests are."

They all want to reach for the stars too much, but they have forgotten the flowers under their feet. This is the case with people who only study hard. They can't see anything. They only know this philosophy and that doctrine every day, and they talk for a long time and just fart.

But you are different, Arthur. You are more down-to-earth than them. You can see the flowers on the ground and know how to look up at the stars in the sky. "

Bentham patted the side of Arthur's face. The old man squeezed his fists and encouraged him: "Young man, come on, work hard! I believe in you!"

Arthur lowered his head slightly: "Mr. Bentham."

"Um?"

Arthur raised his head, smoothed his wet hair, and put on his round black hat.

"I may not be able to solve the problem, but I am willing to do my best. Even if it may cause me personal pain, even if I sacrifice myself, I will achieve what you call true utilitarianism."