WAS J. BENTHAM THE FIRST LEGAL UTILITARIAN?

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Legal utilitarianism is attractive for practice because this field of legal thought and philosophy of law sets out a particular direction of legal policy and statutory regulation (focus on the utility principle in decision-making) that can, under certain reservations, be used to improve people's lives. Most scholars conclude that the first utilitarian was J. Bentham. However, scientific studies prevalently do not involve the analysis of earlier legal doctrines in relation to the use of utility principle. Thus, the relevance and scientific novelty of analysis of the origin of legal utilitarianism is associated with the need to develop a theoretical component of this doctrine that is of current interest for the legal policy and to enlarge the underdeveloped - in our opinion - theoretical framework of legal utilitarianism genesis. The purpose is to identify the first theory in the history of legal thought, which can be classified as legal utilitarianism, and, if such theory is the J. Bentham's utilitarianism, to determine the reasons why earlier theories based on the utility principle cannot be classified as legal utilitarianism. The theoretical basis of the article is materials such as original sources by various thinkers whose works are based on the utility principle and scientific papers of European and the US researchers. For the purpose of the article, the following methodological tools were used: metaphysical (dialectic method), general (analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, analogy, comparison) and specific (historical and legal-historical) scientific methods. The main outcome of the research is identification of distinct features of pre-Bentham legal thought based on the utility principle and identification of pre-requisites and basis (provisions which had formed the basis) for J. Bentham's utilitarianism, as well as the answer to the question: “Was J. Bentham the first legal utilitarian?”.

About the authors

Igor V. Kolosov

Peoples' Friendship University of Russia

Author for correspondence.
Email: i.v.kolosov@yandex.ru

Postgraduate Student, Department of History of Law and State, Law Institute

6 Mikluho-Maklaya str., 117198, Moscow, Russian Federation

Konstantin E. Sigalov

Peoples' Friendship University of Russia

Email: sigalovconst@mail.ru

Doctor of Juridical Science, Candidate of Philosophy Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor of Department of History of Law and State, Law Institute

6 Mikluho-Maklaya str., 117198, Moscow, Russian Federation

References

  1. Ames, J.B. (1908) Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review, 22 (2), 97-113. doi: 10.2307/1324144.
  2. Beccaria, Ch. (2004) O prestupleniyakh i nakazaniyakh. Sost. i predisl. V.S. Ovchinskogo [Beccaria, C. On Crimes and Punishments. V.S. Ovchinsky (ed.)]. Moscow: INFRA-M Publ. (in Russian).
  3. Bentham, J. (2000) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Batoche Books. Kitchener.
  4. Bloom, A., Kirsch, A. (eds.) (1991) The Republic of Plato. Second edition. A. Bloom (ed.). New York: Basic Books.
  5. Bruell, C. (ed.) (1994) Xenophon: Memorabilia. C. Bruell (ed.). A.L. Bonnette (tr.). Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press. doi: 10.1017/s0009840x00251445.
  6. Caro, M.D. (2016) Utilitarianism and Retributivism in Cesare Beccaria. The Italian Law Journal, 1 (2), 1–12.
  7. Chaurasia, R.C. (2001) History of Western Political Thought. Atlantic Publishers & Dist.
  8. Cumberland, R. (1978) De Legibus Naturae Disquisitio Philosophica (A Treatise of the Laws of Nature). J. Maxwell (ed.), reprinted New York, Garland.
  9. Eggleston, B., Miller, D.E. (2014) The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cco9781139096737.
  10. Feng, Y. (1952) A History of Chinese Philosophy. Trans. D. Bodde, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Vol. 1: The Period of the Philosophers (from the Beginnings to Circa 100 B. C.).
  11. Gluchman, V. (1995) Etika konzekvencializmu. Prešov: ManaCon. (in Slovak).
  12. Gluchman, V. (1996) Etika sociálnych dôsledkov a jej kontexty. Prešov: PVT. (in Slovak). Gupta, S.N. (1978) The Indian Concept of Values. New Delhi: Manohar.
  13. Guthrie, W. (1971) A History of Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: University Press.
  14. Hart, H.M., Sacks, A. (1958) The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law. Foundation Press.
  15. Hoesch, M. (2018) From Theory to Practice: Bentham’s Reception of Helvétius. Utilitas, 30 (3), 294–316. doi: 10.1017/s0953820817000309.
  16. Hogan, R. (1978) Was Socrates a “Utilitarian”? Journal of Philosophy, 2 (5), 118-131. doi: 10.17161/ajp.1808.8913.
  17. Holdsworth, W. (1940) Bentham's Place in English Legal History. California Law Review, 28(5), 568–586. doi: 10.2307/3477031.
  18. Hutcheson, F. (2008) An Inquiry Into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue in Two Treatises. W. Leidhold (ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
  19. Ivanova, I.S. (2009) Evdemonizm kak odna iz sostavlyayushchih filosofskoj osnovy servisologi [Eudaimonia as a Component of the Philosophical Framework for Servisology]. Servis Plus [Service Plus], 4, 7–13. (in Russian).
  20. Kosambi, D.D. (1977) The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
  21. Kozlikhin, I.YU., Timoshina, E.V. (2016) Istoriya politicheskikh i pravovykh uchenij. Kurs lektsij [History of Political and Legal Thought. Lecture Course]. 2-e izdanie. Uchebnoe posobie. Moscow: Prospekt Publ. (in Russian).
  22. Li, Z. (1986) 中国古代思想史论 [A History of Ancient Chinese Thought]. Collected Papers on Ancient Chinese Thought. Beijing: Renmin Press. (in Chinese).
  23. Locke, J. (1824) The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes. London: Rivington. 12th ed. Vol. 1.
  24. Lustila, G.L. (2018) John Gay and the Birth of Utilitarianism. Utilitas, 30(1), 86–106. doi: 10.1017/S0953820817000115.
  25. Malakhov, V.P. (ed.) (2003) Demokrit. Malyi diakosmos [Democritus. Mikros Diakosmos]. Pravovaya mysl': Аntologiya [Legal Thought: Anthology]. Moscow: Аkademicheskij proekt; Yekaterinburg: Delovaya kniga Publ. (in Russian).
  26. Mathis, K., Shannon, D. (2009) Efficiency Instead of Justice? Law and Philosophy Library. Springer, Dordrecht. 103–119. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9798-0_6.
  27. Mikhailovskii, I.V. (1914) Ocherki filosofii prava [Essays on the Philosophy of Law]. Tomsk: Izdanie knizhnogo magazina Posokhina V.M. Publ. T. 1. (in Russian).
  28. Nersesyancz, V.S. (1996) Sokrat [Socrates]. Moscow: Izdatel'skaya gruppa INFRА-M-NORMА Publ. (in Russian).
  29. Nersesyancz, V.S. (2004) Istoriya politicheskih i pravovyh uchenij: Uchebnik dlya vuzov [History of Political and Legal Thought: A Textbook for High Schools]. Moscow: Norma Publ. (in Russian).
  30. Nikam, N.A. (1967) Some Concept of Indian Culture. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
  31. Ostroukh, A.N. (2002) Dzheremi Bentam o ponyatii i sushchnosti prava [Jeremy Bentham on the Definition and Essence of Law]. Izvestiya vysshih uchebnyh zavedenij. Pravovedenie [Letters of Higher Educational Institutions. Jurisprudence], 5(244), 222–231 (in Russian).
  32. Rubin, V.A. (1999) Lichnost i vlast v Drevnem Kitae [Personality and Power in Ancient China].Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura Publ. (in Russian).
  33. Sandal, M.L. (ed.) (1999) Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishe. I. 1.
  34. Selby-Bigge, L.A. (ed.) (1897) British Moralists being Selections from Writers principally of the Eighteenth Century. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Vol. II.
  35. Seydemetova, R.E. (2011) Predstavleniya Ieremii Bentama o gosudarstvennom ustrojstve [Bentham Policy Ideas]. Yurist-pravoved [The Lawyer], 47(4), 59–63. (in Russian).
  36. Sigalov, K.E. (2018) Prostranstvennye i temporal'nye osnovaniya osvoeniya pravovoi tsivilizatsii: pokorenie ili absorbtsiya [The Spatial and Temporal Grounds of Legal Civilization Development: Concentration or Absorption]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Yuridicheskie nauki [RUDN Journal of Law], 22(1), 42–65. doi: 10.22363/23132337-2018-22-1-42-65. (in Russian).
  37. Skvorcov, N. (ed.) (1893) Politika Aristotelya. Perevod N. Skvorcova [Politics of Aristotle. N. Skvortsov (ed.)]. Mosсow: Universitetskaya tipografiya Publ. (in Russian).
  38. Sorinel, C. (2011) Utilitarianism — Origins and Evolution. Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Series XI, 2, 273–276.
  39. Spinoza, B. (1891) The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza. R.H.M. Elwes (ed.). Revised edition, London: George Bell and Sons. Vol. I.
  40. Spinoza, B (1895) Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione, et de via, qua optime in veram rerum cognitionem dirigitur. W.H. White, A.H. Stirling (ed.). New York. Macmillan & Co. Vitz, B.B. (1979) Demokrit [Democritus]. Moscow: Mysl' Publ. (in Russian).
  41. Welch, C. (1989) Utilitarianism. In: Eatwell J., Milgate M., Newman P. (eds.) The Invisible Hand. The New Palgrave. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 257-269. doi: 10.1007/978-1-34920313-0_35.
  42. Zuolo, F. (2016) Nature and Morals: Solving the Riddle of Spinoza’s Metaethics. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger, 141 (1), 23-40. doi: 10.3917/rphi.161.0023.

Copyright (c) 2020 Kolosov I.V., Sigalov K.E.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies