A Comparison Of Jeremy Bentham And Jurisprudence

This extraordinary philosopher believed the only thing people wanted in life was to avoid pain and pursue all that may brings them pleasure. He devised four ends (In order of priority), which would promote utility: Subsistence, Abundance, Security and Equality. Bentham felt the greater enjoyment of these ends would result in a larger amount of social happiness. A major criticism Bentham was often faced with was his constant consideration of economic efficiency rather than that of his fellow man. This is obvious from his work on the poor law. Bentham felt charity was his end (idea on Houses of Industry) however economy was in fact his means of doing this . Bentham’s poor plan was seen as an attempt to avert the threats of the revolution and

It is quite obvious why he was regarded as an extraordinary philosopher and why his contributions made such an impact to Jurisprudence.

A Comparison of Jeremy Bentham and his Student John Austin

It is important Jeremy Bentham and John Austin rejected any law not grounded in Utility, believing it would be hopelessly subjective and unascertainable. They both felt utilitarianism was the only way to ensure any law passed would be for the good of all. However I will now compare both philosophers with regard to three areas of their beliefs, which they most differed: Punishment, The Sovereign and The Common Law.

• Punishment

Jeremy Bentham allowed law to be enforced by way of alluring motives and coercive motives i.e. on a reward/punishment basis. Austin however disagreed with this, believing all sanctions had to be a punishment or conditional evil. Bentham also had a broader conception of law than Austin, encompassing domestic and declaratory laws, which John Austin did not. From this Bentham developed a deontic logic believing all laws to be either permissive or imperative. It is also necessary to mention Bentham did in the death penalty, as a form of punishment as he felt is was disproportionate to any