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

Bentham glanced at Arthur's heavy dark circles, smiled and shook his head, "You don't look very well." ”

Arthur smiled, "Maybe." I also remember discussing with you earlier about the deontological principle of Kant's claims, and the consequential principle of your assertion.

Kant's deontology holds that the right and wrong of a thing, whether it should be done or not, is not determined by the consequences it will bring, but by whether the act itself conforms to moral norms.

The consequentialism you advocate holds that the right and wrong of a thing, whether it should be done or not, should ultimately be considered in the final analysis of what kind of consequences the action has brought or may bring, what kind of impact it will have, and how it will change the world around us. ”

Bentham asked, "Has your opinion changed now?" ”

Arthur nodded at first, but quickly shook his head again: "It's changed, but it's not changed." I think Kant has a point, but I think you have just as much point. That's why you might think I'm not looking good right now. ”

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

Arthur nodded, "You're a great wise man, you guessed it." I want to hang a group of people, but under the current law, they may not be able to die. ”

Bentham shook his head and said, "I'm not a wise man, I'm just a utilitarian, I just hope to be able to solve social problems."

Like I told you before, utilitarianism is not a bad thing. The difference between my views and Kant's lies in two main aspects.

Kant believed that man is a rational person, so the moral concept that man agrees with is also rational.

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

The difference between me and him is that I think of human beings as emotional, human behavior, motivated entirely by pleasure and pain.

Humanity completely places itself under two masters – pain and pleasure. They dictate what we should do, what we will do, right and wrong, cause and effect, they all determine it. Everything we think, say, and do is governed by them.

I think people are emotional, but when it comes to actually doing it, I look at it from a rational point of view.

There is no difference in the nature of pleasure and pain, only in the total amount.

Therefore, the principle of utilitarianism is to increase the total amount of happiness and happiness of all mankind as much as possible, reduce the total amount of suffering, and ultimately make the total amount of happiness far exceed the total amount of pain. ”

Arthur asked, "Theories always sound good, but you should know that in practice, whether it is Kant's theory or yours, there will be some problems. ”

"Of course." Bentham laughed and said, "Didn't the question of whether your train crushed one person or five people made it difficult for me?" ”

Arthur asked, "Do you have an answer now?" ”

Bentham learned from Arthur's movements just now, first nodded, and then shook his head: "Yes, but no." ”

"What do you mean by that?"

Bentham said: "Because whether you look at this matter from Kant's point of view, or from my point of view, it is not right to pull the orbital switch to crush people."

Even from a utilitarian standpoint, this is not a simple one-and-five math problem.

You may have read my book, in which I describe human happiness and pain by marking its four sources and constraints: natural, political, moral, and religious.

It is only when we think about it from the point of view of political binding force that we can come to the conclusion that five is one, and thus choose to crush one rather than five.

But from a natural, moral, or religious point of view, one is the same as five, and there is no difference between killing someone and killing someone.

When the public knows that someone has been forced to choose between killing one person and killing five, they are not happy that person chose to kill one, nor are they saddened by the fact that the person did not flip the switch and the five people were crushed to death by the train.

Killing five people is actually the same pain for the public as killing one.

Those who interpret it as a simple math problem are deliberately muddying the waters of such social problems in order to make them feel deeper.

Instead of dwelling on the problem of driving a train and crushing people, consider why someone would be tied up on the tracks.

Legislative amendments are also being made to reduce or even eliminate the occurrence of such situations as much as possible.

Arthur, do you know what utilitarianism is? This is utilitarianism, and it is utilitarianism that is committed to solving problems.

It's a practical philosophy, a system of theories that utilitarianism strives to provide guiding standards for legislators, and I'm tired of all the chattering arguments, and I just want to solve problems. ”

When Arthur heard this, he seemed to gradually understand.

"So, utilitarianism is a requirement for legislators?"

Bentham nodded, "Of course." Do you remember the four legislative principles of utilitarianism? ”

As a graduate of the University of London, Arthur certainly remembered important statements from Bentham's writings.

"First, the final penalty should be determined based on the consequences of the criminal act.

Second, the criterion for judging whether the consequences are good or bad is the change in the happiness and pain of all involved, that is, the change in the feelings of each individual caused by the criminal act as the basis for moral judgment.

Third, the happiness and pain of all concerned should be considered equally, and this criterion should not change due to kinship, distance, or objective conditions such as power, status, wealth, etc., and everyone involved should be considered according to the same standard.

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

Bentham smiled and patted Arthur on the shoulder: "Young man, ordinary people can not tell the difference between legislation and ethics. But you're an enforcer, and you have to score points to discern it.

Although both legislation and ethics aim at happiness, not all violations of ethics should be punished.

All punishment is evil in itself, and if it should be allowed to be used, it can only be because it has the potential to exclude greater evil.

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

The first principle is innocence, i.e. the purpose of legislation is to prevent any sin from happening as much as possible.

If this crime cannot be eradicated, then the second principle is adopted, and the punishment is different, so that the perpetrator of the crime is compelled to choose the less harmful sin than the greater one.

For example, in the crime of robbery caused by property, although we cannot prohibit the crime of robbery, we sentence the crime of robbery to exile and the crime of murder to hang, and use different means of punishment to achieve the result that the offender will not commit murder because of the robbery.

The third is to stop crimes, and to minimize the social damage caused by criminal acts and punishments.

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

Speaking of this, Bentham saw that Arthur seemed to be in a struggling contemplation, and 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 strive for a perfect legal system.

This may be the meaning of people like you to exist in this world. ”

Arthur looked up at him: "Mr. Bentham ......"

Bentham said: "I am old, and I have few years to live." But you're different, you're still young, you have to be strong to live in this world.

You did a very good job that day in the magistrate's court. In case you didn't know, I also wrote a couple of reviews for you in The Westminster Review.

You may not like it, but that's all I can do as an old man now.

Young man, you used to say that you didn't agree with me, but I didn't tell you, but I, an old man, agreed with you very much.

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

I couldn't find a more standard practice than your speech in the Magistrate's Court.

A lot of people tell me that they understand utilitarianism, but in my opinion, they understand utilitarianism!

They only remember that I said that 'the greatest happiness of most people is the standard of judging right and wrong', but they forget that I also said that 'it is futile to talk about the interests of society without knowing what personal interests are'.

They all want to pick the stars too much, but they forget the flowers under their feet, and the people who will only die reading are like this, they can't see anything, they only know this philosophy and that doctrine every day, and they are farting for a long time.

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

Bentham patted Arthur's side face, and the old man clenched his fists to cheer him up: "Young man, come on, work hard!" I believe you! ”

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

"Huh?"

Arthur looked up, brushed his watery hair, and put the yarke-cap on.

"I may not be able to solve the problem, but I'm willing to do my best. Even though it may be painful for me personally, even if I sacrifice myself, I will achieve what you call true utilitarianism. ”