To infer that they will do so is to infer that all the organic instincts will operate precisely as he intends;that each individual,for example,will form an independent opinion upon legislative questions,vote for men who will apply his opinions,and see that his representatives perform his bidding honestly.That they should do so is essential to his scheme;but that they will do so is what he takes for granted.He assumes,that is,that there is no need for inquiring into the social instincts which lie beneath all political action.You can make your machine and assume the moving force.
That is the natural result of considering political and legislative problems without taking into account the whole character of the human materials employed in the construction.Bentham's sovereign is thus absolute.He rules by coercion,as a foreign power may rule by the sword in a conquered province.Thus,force is the essence of government,and it is needless to go further.To secure the right application of the force,we have simply to distribute it among the subjects.Government still means coercion,and ultimately nothing else;but then,as the subjects are simply moved by their own interests,that is,by utility,they will apply the power to secure those interests.Therefore,all that is wanted is this distribution,and Mill's first problem,What government is for the good of the people?is summarily answered.The question,how obedience is to be secured,is evaded by confining the answer to the 'sanctions,'and taking for granted that the process of distributing power is perfectly simple,or that a new order can be introduced as easily as parliament can pass an act for establishing a new police in London.The 'social contract'is abolished;but it is taken for granted that the whole power of the sovereign can be distributed,and rules made for its application by the common sense of the various persons interested.Finally,the one bond outside of the individual is the sovereign.He represents all that holds society together;his 'sanctions,'as I have said,are taken to be on the same plane with the 'moral sanctions'--not dependent upon them,but other modes of applying similar motives.
As the sovereign,again,is in a sense omnipotent,and yet can be manufactured,so to speak,by voluntary arrangements among the individual members of society,there is no limit to the influence which he may exercise.I note,indeed,that I am speaking rather of the tendencies of the theory than of definitely formulated conclusions.Most of the Utilitarians were exceedingly shrewd,practical people,whose regard for hard facts imposed limits upon their speculations.
They should have been the last people to believe too implicitly in the magical efficacy of political contrivances,for they were fully aware that many men are knaves and most men fools.They probably put little faith in Bentham's Utopia,except as a remote ideal,and an ideal of unimaginative minds.The Utopia was constructed on 'individualist'principles,because common-sense naturally approves individualism.The whole social and political order is clearly the sum of the individuals,who combine to form an aggregate;and theories about social bonds take one to the mystical and sentimental.The absolute tendency is common to Bentham and the Jacobins.Whether the individual be taken as a unit of constant properties,or as the subject of absolute rights,we reach equally absolute conclusions.When all the social and political regulations are regarded as indefinitely modifiable,the ultimate laws come to depend upon the absolute framework of unalterable fact.This,again,is often the right point of view for immediate questions in which we may take for granted that the average individual is in fact constant;and,as I have said in regard to Bentham's legislative process,leads to very relevant and important,though not ultimate,questions.But there are certain other results which require to be noticed.'Individualism,'like other words that have become watchwords of controversy,has various shades of meaning,and requires a little more definition.
