Government answerable to the many
For whose happiness should a state be built, the ruling few or the governed many? Bentham fixes the end as the greatest happiness of the greatest number and designs a government to serve no lesser interest.
In a few compressed pages Bentham fixes the end of government, the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and specifically of the many rather than the ruling few, then derives a frame to serve it and no sinister interest. Sovereignty rests in the whole people; a single representative assembly is chosen on a wide and secret franchise; officials are appointed for fitness, paid modestly, and held answerable at every point to those they serve. Frankly republican and democratic, with none of the deference to existing constitutions that softened the reform pamphlets of the day, it is the democratic conclusion a lifetime of utilitarian argument had finally brought him to.
- utilitarianism
- distributive justice
Enter a dialogue
- Thieves are resisted everywhere and mostly stopped. Why did you count rulers, the professed protectors of the people, as a greater danger than thieves or foreign enemies?
- Government can produce good only by first causing evil, through punishment or hardship. Why then place your hope for happiness in government at all?
- A monarch's allowance would feed ten thousand labourers, yet a gouty, gloomy king is less happy than a cheerful, healthy labourer. What does that teach about inequality?
- You would pay an official extra only once his extra service is proved as strictly as a crime is. Why hold reward to the standard of guilt?
- You point to the United States as proof that a people can safely choose its rulers, slave-holding states excepted. What does that exception say about your proof?