Therefore it implies that all authority is bad;the authority,for example,of parent over child,or of husband over wife;and moreover,that all laws to the contrary are ipso facto void.That is why it is 'anarchical.'It supposes a 'natural right,'not only as suggesting reasons for proposed alterations of the legal right,but as actually annihilating the right and therefore destroying all government.'Natural rights,'says Bentham,(98)is ****** nonsense;natural and impreible rights 'rhetorical nonsense --nonsense upon stilts.'For 'natural right'substitute utility,and you have,of course,a reasonable principle,because an appeal to experience.But lay down 'liberty'as an absolute right and you annihilate law,for every law supposes coercion.
One man gets liberty simply by restricting the liberty of others.(99)What Bentham substantially says,therefore,is that on this version absolute rights of individuals could mean nothing but anarchy;or that no law can be defended except by a reference to facts,and therefore to 'utility.'
One answer might be that the demand is not for absolute liberty,but for as much liberty as is compatible with equal liberty for all.The fourth article of the Declaration says:'Liberty consists in being able to do that which is not hurtful to another,and therefore the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no other bounds than those which ensure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights.'This formula corresponds to a theory held by Mr Herbert Spencer;and,as he observes,(100)held on different grounds by Kant.Bentham's view,indicated by his criticism of this article in the 'Anarchical Fallacies,'is therefore worth a moment's notice.The formula does not demand the absolute ******* which would condemn all coercion and all government;but it still seems to suggest that liberty,not utility,is the ultimate end.Bentham's formula,therefore,diverges.
All government,he holds,is an evil,because coercion implies pain.We must therefore minimise,though we cannot annihilate,government;but we must keep to utility as the sole test.Government should,of course,give to the individual all such rights as are 'useful';but it does not follow,without a reference to utility,that men should not be restrained even in 'self-regarding'conduct.Some men,women,and children require to be protected against the consequences of their own 'weakness,ignorance,or imprudence.'(101)Bentham adheres,that is,to the strictly empirical ground.The absolute doctrine requires to be qualified by a reference to actual circumstances:and,among those circumstances,as Bentham intimates,we must include the capacity of the persons concerned to govern themselves.Carried out as an absolute principle,it would imply the independence of infants;and must therefore require some reference to 'utility.'
Bentham,then,objects to the Jacobin theory as too absolute and too 'individualist.'
The doctrine begs the question;it takes for granted what can only be proved by experience;and therefore lays down as absolute theories which are only true under certain conditions or with reference to the special circumstances to which they are applied.That is inconsistent with Bentham's thoroughgoing empiricism.But he had antagonists to meet upon the other side:and,in meeting them,he was led to a doctrine which has been generally condemned for the very same faults --as absolute and individualist.We have only to ask in what sense Bentham appealed to 'experience'to see how he actually reached his conclusions.The adherents of the old tradition appealed to experience in their own way.The English people,they said,is the freest,richest,happiest in the world;it has grown up under the British Constitution:therefore the British Constitution is the best in the world,as Burke tells you,and the British common law,as Blackstone tells you,is the 'perfection of wisdom.'
Bentham's reply was virtually that although he,like Burke,appealed to experience,he appealed to experience scientifically organised,whereas Burke appealed to mere blind tradition.Bentham is to be the founder of a new science,founded like chemistry on experiment,and his methods are to be as superior to those of Burke as those of modern chemists to those of the alchemists who also invoked experience.The true plan was not to throw experience aside because it was alleged by the ignorant and the prejudiced,but to interrogate experience systematically,and so to become the Bacon or the Newton of legislation,instead of wandering off into the a priori constructions of a Descartes or a Leibniz.
Bentham thus professes to use an 'inductive'instead of the deductive method of the Jacobins;but reaches the same practical conclusions from the other end.The process is instructive.He objected to the existing inequalities,not as inequalities simply,but as mischievous inequalities.He,as well as the Jacobins,would admit that inequality required justification;and he agreed with them that,in this case,there was no justification.The existing privileges did not promote the 'greatest happiness of the greatest number.'
The attack upon the 'Anarchical Fallacies'must be taken with the Book of Fallacies,and the Book of Fallacies is a sustained and vigorous,though a curiously cumbrous,assault upon the Conservative arguments.Its pith may be found in Sydney Smith's Noodle's Oration;but it is itself well worth reading by any one who can recognise really admirable dialectical power,and forgive a little crabbedness of style in consideration of genuine intellectual vigour.I only notice Bentham's assault upon the 'wisdom of our ancestors.'
