If we take the 'self-preference principle'absolutely,the question becomes how a multitude of individuals,each separately pursuing his own happiness,can so arrange matters that their joint action may secure the happiness of all.Clearly a man,however selfish,has an interest generally in putting down theft and murder.He is already provided with a number of interests to which security,at least,and therefore a regular administration of justice,is essential.His shop could not be carried on without the police;and he may agree to pay the expenses,even if others reap the benefit in greater proportion.A theory of legislation,therefore,which supposes ready formed all the instincts which make a decent commercial society possible can do without much reference to sympathy or altruism.Bentham's man is not the colourless unit of a priori writing,nor the noble savage of Rousseau,but the respectable citizen with a policeman round the corner.Such a man may well hold that honesty is the best policy;he has enough sympathy to be kind to his old mother,and help a friend in distress;but the need of romantic and elevated conduct rarely occurs to him;and the heroic,if he meets it,appears to him as an exception,not far removed from the silly.He does not reflect --especially if he cares nothing for history --how even the society in which he is a contented unit has been built up,and how much loyalty and heroism has been needed for the work;nor even,to do him justice,what unsuspected capacities may lurk in his own commonplace character.The really characteristic point is,however,that Bentham does not clearly face the problem.He is content to take for granted as an ultimate fact that the self-interest principle in the long run coincides with the greatest 'happiness'principle,and leaves the problem to his successors.There we shall meet it again.
Finally,Bentham's view of religion requires a word.The short reply,however,would be sufficient,that he did not believe in any theology,and was in the main indifferent to the whole question till it encountered him in political matters.His first interest apparently was roused by the educational questions which I have noticed,and the proposal to teach the catechism Bentham,remembering the early bullying at Oxford,examines the catechism;and argues in his usual style that to enforce it is to compel children to tell lies.
But this leads him to assail the church generally;and he regards the church simply as a part of the huge corrupt machinery which elsewhere had created Judge and Co.He states many facts about non-residence and bloated bishoprics which had a very serious importance;and he then asks how the work might be done more cheaply.As a clergyman's only duty is to read weekly services and preach sermons,he suggests (whether seriously may be doubted)that this might be done as well by teaching a parish boy to read properly,and provide him with the prayer-book and the homilies.(123)A great deal of expense would be saved.This,again,seems to have led him to attack St.Paul,whom he took to be responsible for dogmatic theology,and therefore for the catechism;and he cross-examines the apostle,and confronts his various accounts of the conversion with a keenness worthy of a professional lawyer.In one of the MSS.at University College the same method is applied to the gospels.
Bentham was clearly not capable of anticipating Renan.From these studies he was led to the far more interesting book,published under the name of Philip Beauchamp.Bentham supplied the argument in part;but to me it seems clear that it owes so much to the editor,Grote,that it may more fitly be discussed hereafter.
The limitations and defects of Bentham's doctrine have been made abundantly evident by later criticism.They were due partly to his personal character,and partly to the intellectual and special atmosphere in which he was brought up.But it is more important to recognise the immense real value of his doctrine.