All Thinkers

Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher and legal reformer. He was the founder of modern utilitarianism. He was born on 15 February 1748 in London, into a wealthy lawyer's family. He was a child prodigy. He started learning Latin at age three and entered Oxford University at twelve. He qualified as a lawyer but never practised law. He thought the English legal system was a mess of confused rules that harmed the people it was meant to serve. He spent the rest of his life trying to reform it. He inherited enough money to live without working. For nearly 60 years, he wrote almost every day. He produced thousands of pages on law, government, punishment, economics, and ethics. Much of his work was not published during his lifetime. He would start a book, follow his thoughts into new topics, and leave the book unfinished. His friends and disciples, including James Mill and later James's son John Stuart Mill, edited and published large parts of his work. Bentham's main book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, appeared in 1789. It set out his core principle: the measure of a good action or a good law is whether it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This principle, called the 'principle of utility', became the foundation of utilitarianism. His influence on law and politics in Britain was enormous. He helped design prisons, wrote model constitutions for foreign governments, and shaped the reform movements of the early 19th century. He had unusual ideas. He designed a new kind of prison, the Panopticon, that has since become a famous image of surveillance. He argued against laws punishing homosexual acts, centuries before this became widely accepted. He left instructions for his body to be preserved after death and displayed in a wooden cabinet. His preserved body, called the 'auto-icon', is still on display at University College London, which he helped inspire. He died on 6 June 1832 in London, aged 84.

Origin
England
Lifespan
1748-1832
Era
18th-19th Century
Subjects
Philosophy Ethics Law Utilitarianism Legal Reform
Why They Matter

Bentham matters for three reasons. First, he founded utilitarianism, one of the three main traditions in modern moral philosophy. Before him, most ethical thinking was based on religious commandments, natural law, or duty.

Bentham offered a different standard

Happiness. An action is good if it produces more happiness than suffering. A law is good if it helps more people than it hurts. This simple principle is appealing and powerful. It is also deeply controversial. Critics, including G.E.M. Anscombe and Harriet McBryde Johnson, have pointed out that it can justify terrible things if the numbers add up right. Modern debates on ethics, public policy, and even medical decisions still run along the lines Bentham drew.

Second, he was a serious legal reformer. Much of modern law, especially in Britain, its former colonies, and the United States, carries Bentham's fingerprints. He argued for clearly written laws instead of obscure traditions. He argued for the decriminalisation of homosexuality (a position he kept in unpublished manuscripts, knowing it was too dangerous to publish). He argued for prison reform, animal welfare, universal education, women's suffrage, and the separation of church and state. Many of these positions were radical in his time.

Most are now mainstream

He showed what careful argument could do when directed at unjust laws.

Third, his work raises questions about the design of institutions. His Panopticon prison was never fully built, but the idea became famous through Michel Foucault's analysis in the 20th century. It describes a building where one watcher can see all inmates, but inmates cannot tell if they are being watched. Foucault used it as an image of modern power, in which people control themselves because they never know who is watching. Today, in the age of cameras and data, Bentham's design feels prophetic.

Key Ideas
1
The Greatest Happiness Principle
2
The Felicific Calculus
3
The Question About Animals
Key Quotations
"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong."
— A Fragment on Government, 1776
This is Bentham's core principle, stated at age 28 in his first published work. He was not the first to use the phrase. Francis Hutcheson and Joseph Priestley had used versions of it before him. Bentham made it the foundation of a whole ethical system. The sentence is simple. Apply it to any action or law. Count the people affected. Measure the happiness produced and the suffering caused. The right choice is the one that does the most good for the most people. For students, the principle is worth sitting with. It is not obviously wrong. It is also not obviously right. Thinking carefully about when it works and when it fails is a good introduction to ethics.
"The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
— An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapter XVII, footnote, 1789
Bentham is asking what qualifies a creature for moral consideration. The traditional answer was reason or speech, capacities only humans possessed. So only humans mattered morally. Bentham rejected this. If a creature can feel pain, its pain matters. This simple reframing opened the modern animal rights tradition. Pigs, cows, fish, chickens, all can suffer. If suffering matters, their suffering matters. For students, the passage is short and powerful. It does not tell you what to conclude about eating meat or animal testing. It tells you what question to ask. The answer is uncomfortable for modern societies that cause enormous animal suffering in food production.
Using This Thinker in the Classroom
Ethical Thinking When introducing students to ethical reasoning by consequences
How to introduce
Present a simple moral problem. Should you lie to protect a friend? Should you break a rule to help someone? Introduce Bentham's approach. Count the consequences. Who is helped? Who is hurt? Add them up. The right action is the one that produces the most good overall. Let students try it on the problem. Then point out where it seems to work and where it seems to give strange answers. This is a practical introduction to utilitarian thinking.
Ethical Thinking When discussing how humans treat animals
How to introduce
Share Bentham's question: not 'can they reason?' or 'can they talk?' but 'can they suffer?' Ask students: if animals can suffer, does that matter morally? Why do humans treat some animals (pets) very differently from others (farmed animals)? What would change if we took Bentham's question seriously? This is a careful, open discussion. Students can reach different conclusions. The goal is to make the question visible, which most of us avoid.
Further Reading

For a first introduction, Bentham's An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation is long but readable in parts. The famous passage on animals in Chapter XVII is short and accessible. Philip Schofield's Bentham: A Guide for the Perplexed (2009) is a good modern overview. The University College London Bentham Project has made much of his work available online for free, including scholarly editions. Several BBC documentaries cover Bentham and the Panopticon.

Key Ideas
1
The Panopticon
2
Legal Reform
3
Rights as 'Nonsense on Stilts'
Key Quotations
"Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, nonsense upon stilts."
— Anarchical Fallacies, written 1796, published 1816
Bentham is attacking the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. He does not deny that people should be protected from harm. He denies that there are pre-existing 'natural rights' that exist before any government makes laws. Rights, he argues, come from laws. The phrase 'nonsense upon stilts' is one of his most famous. It compares the idea of natural rights to a walking stick made of air: impressive-looking, supporting nothing. For intermediate students, the quote is a provocation. Modern human rights talk depends on the idea that rights exist even when governments deny them. Bentham thought this was confused. The debate is still live. His critique is strong enough that any defender of natural rights has to answer it.
"Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove."
— Attributed to Bentham, widely quoted in his correspondence and in later utilitarian writing
This is Bentham's principle stated as a rule for daily life. Forget abstract theories for a moment. Wake up each morning and ask two questions. Where can I add some happiness to the world today? Where can I remove some pain? These are not impossible questions. Most of us can do small things each day that move the total a little. A kind word, a practical help, a quiet refusal to participate in harm. For intermediate students, the quote is practical. It turns a grand ethical theory into something actionable. You do not have to solve all the world's problems. You have to notice the ones near you and do what you can.
Using This Thinker in the Classroom
Critical Thinking When teaching students to see the limits of their own moral theories
How to introduce
Present a difficult utilitarian case. A group of five children is drowning. You can save them only by pushing one child into the water to block the current, where that child will die. The math says save five, lose one. Does it feel right? Most students will be troubled. Discuss why. This shows that utilitarian reasoning, while useful, does not capture everything we care about morally. Bentham himself would have said it does. G.E.M. Anscombe would have said it does not. This is a real philosophical disagreement worth engaging.
Problem-Solving When discussing how to design rules and institutions well
How to introduce
Bentham believed laws and institutions should be designed to produce good outcomes, not to follow tradition for its own sake. Ask students: if they could redesign their school, what rules would they keep, change, or drop? Which rules actually help students learn and grow? Which exist only because 'that's how it has always been'? This is a practical exercise in Benthamite thinking. It teaches students to ask what a rule is for, not just what it says.
Critical Thinking When discussing surveillance and modern life
How to introduce
Explain Bentham's Panopticon prison design. Then discuss: what in modern life resembles a Panopticon? Security cameras in public spaces. Social media where your posts might be seen by anyone. Workplaces that track everything you do. When we know we might be watched, we change how we behave. Is this a good thing? Does it prevent bad behaviour or produce fake behaviour? Bentham thought the effect was mostly good. Michel Foucault thought it was a new form of power. Students can argue both sides.
Further Reading

For deeper reading, the Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham edited by the UCL Bentham Project is the definitive edition, with new volumes still appearing. For utilitarianism more generally, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism (1861) is a classic continuation of Bentham's project with important modifications. Henry Sidgwick's The Methods of Ethics (1874) is the deepest 19th-century treatment. For Foucault's engagement with the Panopticon, his Discipline and Punish (1975) is essential.

Key Ideas
1
Bentham on Homosexuality
2
The Auto-Icon
3
The Serious Critiques
Key Quotations
"The greatest good for the greatest number."
— Popular version of Bentham's principle; the phrase appears in various forms across his works
This short phrase has become the most famous version of Bentham's principle. It sounds obvious. It is also deceptive. It hides the serious problems that utilitarian theory has wrestled with for 200 years. Greatest good for whom, exactly? Does a small intense good for one person outweigh a small spread good for many? What about people who cannot vote or speak, like children or future generations? Does everyone's happiness count equally, or are some counted more? Bentham himself had answers to these questions. Later philosophers disagreed with some of them. For advanced students, the slogan is a case study in how simplification can cover real complexity. Any serious engagement with utilitarianism has to go past the slogan to the full working out of the theory.
"All punishment in itself is evil. Upon the principle of utility, if it ought at all to be admitted, it ought only to be admitted in as far as it promises to exclude some greater evil."
— An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789
Bentham is thinking about when punishment is justified. His answer is strict. Punishment causes pain. Pain is bad. Therefore punishment is bad, by itself. It is only justified when it prevents something worse, such as future crime. This means any punishment that does not actually prevent future harm is wrong, even if it 'fits' the crime or satisfies public anger. This was a radical view in 1789 and is still radical today. Most people feel that criminals deserve punishment regardless of whether it prevents anything. Bentham's utilitarianism said the feeling was not a sufficient ground. For advanced students, the quote is a strong test case. It shows utilitarianism cutting against common moral intuitions. Do we punish to deter future crime? Or do we punish because the offender deserves it? Different answers follow different theories.
Using This Thinker in the Classroom
Ethical Thinking When discussing when to speak out and when to stay silent
How to introduce
Tell students about Bentham's unpublished 1780s essay arguing against laws punishing homosexuality. He made a clear case based on his principles. He never published it because it would have ended his career. Discuss: when is it right to hold back truths that would harm you to speak? When is silence cowardice, and when is it strategy? Bentham's choice was not simple. He wrote the essay. He showed it to trusted friends. He chose not to risk his career on it. Students can reach different judgements on whether he was right.
Cultural Heritage and Identity When discussing whether rights exist outside of law
How to introduce
Share Bentham's attack on natural rights as 'nonsense on stilts'. Then share the modern human rights view, which treats certain rights as existing even when governments deny them. Discuss: which view makes more sense? Bentham says rights come from laws. Human rights activists say laws are judged against rights. Both views have serious consequences. If rights come from laws, what happens when the law is unjust? If rights exist beyond law, how do we know what they are? This is a mature conversation at the heart of political philosophy.
Common Misconceptions
Common misconception

Utilitarianism means doing whatever makes the most people happy, no matter what.

What to teach instead

Real utilitarianism is more careful than that. Bentham's measure includes both pleasures and pains, not just pleasures. Future consequences count, not just immediate ones. A small harm spread across many people can outweigh a big pleasure for a few. Later utilitarians, like John Stuart Mill, added that not all pleasures are equal: thinking a great thought may be worth more than eating a piece of cake. The simple version of utilitarianism that appears in popular discussion often misses this careful balancing. That said, even careful utilitarianism still faces the deeper criticisms about fairness and inviolable rights.

Common misconception

Bentham's Panopticon was a cruel idea.

What to teach instead

Bentham believed it was humane. His era's prisons were dark, violent, disease-ridden places where most prisoners were mixed together without supervision. He designed the Panopticon to be better: clean, orderly, non-violent, with constant humane oversight. His goal was to reform prisoners through conditions, not to brutalise them. Later thinkers, especially Foucault, showed the design's darker implications. But Bentham himself was not trying to create a nightmare. He thought he was inventing a gentler form of punishment. Judging his intention matters for reading him fairly.

Common misconception

Bentham thought feelings and traditions did not matter.

What to teach instead

He thought they mattered as data, not as rules. A tradition that produced happiness was a good tradition, by his measure. A tradition that caused suffering was a bad tradition, regardless of how old. Bentham did not deny that people had feelings and traditional attachments. He said these should be tested against real consequences, not accepted just because they were familiar. This is more moderate than the caricature of Bentham as a cold calculator who dismissed all human feeling.

Common misconception

Utilitarianism is the only coherent modern ethical theory.

What to teach instead

It is one of three main traditions, alongside deontology (duty-based ethics, associated with Kant) and virtue ethics (associated with Aristotle and revived by G.E.M. Anscombe). Each has strengths and weaknesses. Utilitarianism handles consequences well but struggles with fairness and inviolable rights. Deontology protects individuals but can produce rigid rules that ignore consequences. Virtue ethics focuses on character but can be vague about specific decisions. Serious modern ethical thinking usually draws on elements of all three. Treating utilitarianism as the only option misses the whole debate.

Intellectual Connections
In Dialogue With
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau and Bentham represent two deeply different answers to the question of how to organise society. Rousseau looked for legitimacy in the general will, the collective self-rule of citizens. Bentham looked for legitimacy in consequences, specifically the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The two frameworks often give different answers to real problems. A policy might serve the general will but not maximise happiness, or maximise happiness but violate the community's self-rule. Reading them together is one of the classic exercises in political philosophy.
Develops
Adam Smith
Smith's economics focused on how individual pursuit of self-interest, under certain conditions, could produce general benefit. Bentham extended this style of thinking from economics to law and ethics. Both were interested in consequences, in measurable outcomes, in how institutions shape behaviour. Smith was more cautious about sweeping reform. Bentham was bolder. Reading them together shows the Enlightenment Scottish and English traditions of systematic social thinking in conversation. Many modern policy economists work in the space these two defined.
In Dialogue With
G.E.M. Anscombe
Anscombe was one of the sharpest critics of utilitarianism in the 20th century. She argued that Bentham-style ethics makes no action absolutely forbidden. Killing the innocent, for example, could be justified if the math came out right. She thought this was a deep moral mistake. Her attack on 'consequentialism' (a word she coined) is essentially an attack on Bentham's tradition. Reading them together is a useful exercise. Each makes a strong case. Each sees real problems in the other. Serious modern ethics engages with both sides.
Develops
Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes had argued in the 17th century that governments are justified because they solve the problem of social chaos. Without a state, life is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'. Bentham's approach shares Hobbes's hard-headed focus on consequences. Where Hobbes asked what government prevents the worst, Bentham asked what law produces the most happiness. Both were sceptical of natural rights, religious foundations for government, and traditional authority. Reading them together shows two versions of consequentialist political thinking, separated by 150 years.
Influenced
Michel Foucault
Foucault's famous analysis of modern power in Discipline and Punish (1975) took Bentham's Panopticon as its central image. Foucault argued that modern societies use the Panopticon principle: people control themselves because they never know when they are being watched. Schools, workplaces, hospitals, and social media all work this way. Bentham thought his design was humane. Foucault showed how it could be a tool of subtle domination. Neither is fully right. Together, reading Bentham's original design and Foucault's critique shows how an idea travels across centuries and takes on new meanings.
In Dialogue With
Harriet McBryde Johnson
McBryde Johnson's famous debate with Peter Singer was a debate with Bentham's tradition. Singer is a contemporary utilitarian who extends Bentham's thinking to disability, arguing that parents should be able to euthanise severely disabled newborns. McBryde Johnson, disabled herself, argued that this logic dismisses the actual lives of disabled people. Her challenge is really a challenge to utilitarianism. It shows what can go wrong when moral reasoning focuses only on aggregate happiness and does not respect individual dignity. Reading Bentham's principles alongside her objections is one of the best current exercises in ethics.
Further Reading

For research-level engagement, the Journal of Bentham Studies publishes current scholarship freely online. Philip Schofield's Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham is a major recent study. For the homosexuality essay, Louis Crompton's edition of the manuscripts, published as 'Jeremy Bentham's Essay on Paederasty' in the Journal of Homosexuality, is the standard source. For modern critiques, Bernard Williams's essay 'A Critique of Utilitarianism' (in Utilitarianism: For and Against, with J.J.C. Smart) remains essential. Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons extends and modifies the utilitarian tradition.