Halévy's Bentham Is Bentham

Abstract

A reply to Fransisco Vergara's attack on Halévy's interpretation of Bentham in Philosophy, January, 1998. Vergara had argued that Halévy was mistaken in interpreting Bentham's principle of utility as a psychological law as well as the ethical greatest happiness principle. Mongin and Sigot show that Halévy correctly interpreted Bentham's texts and that the psychological law is necessary to Bentham's legal theory, economics and politics; they also argue that it is incorrect to confuse the principle of utility with a theory of universal selfishness, and that this misunderstanding underlies Vergara's mistaken picture of both Halévy and Bentham.

Collective interest versus individual interest in Bentham'sfelicific calculus. Questioning welfarism and fairness

“…See also Guidi (2007). 21 See Mongin and Sigot (1999) and references quoted in their article. provide more pleasure and to limit pain; it is therefore the guiding principle for individual behaviours.…”

“…The distinction might even be considered as evidence of a contradiction. 11 Without committing ourselves to such extreme positions, the links between the normative and the positive aspects of utilitarianism have been questioned by utilitarians and their commentators from different perspectives: the difference between psychological hedonism, and universal hedonism (Sidgwick 1874, Guidi 2007; the role of egoism or self-interest (Vergara 1998, Mongin and Sigot 1999); individual or extra-individual prudence (Halévy 5 See Mongin (1995) and Mongin and Sigot (1999). 6 Cot (2000: 290) 7 Or, rather, the principle of the greatest happiness; see Burne (1949).…”