Andrew Lipson

Benthem vs. Spencer

            Two political ideologies which emerged and dictated many of the events of England’s nineteenth century liberal movements were Jeremy Benthem’s utilitarianism, and Herbert Spencer’s social darwinsim.  Benthem’s utilitarian belief put forth the idea that the “individual and legislator”^[1]  should attempt to create a situation where the most people as possible could attain happiness.   This has many roots in socialist and communist forms of government, despite Benthem’s original doctrine that government shouldn’t have an all encompassing role in the lives of the people.  Spencer’s concept of social darwinsim is borrowed from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, yet applied to society with capitalism acting as the natural selector.  Spencer conjectured that, some people are inherently more fit to live in a capitalist system, and therefore the poor, will eventaully die out, thus creating a more advanced and successful race of man.  While Benthem’s ideology is more compensating and morally and ethically driven, Spencer’s is more cruel and reliant on that mankind must progress and we must submit to survival of the fittest.  Spencer’s beliefs are more compliant with the classical liberalism of the early nineteeth century in England, as Benthem’s ideas adhere more to the modern liberalism, or at that time conservatism, which led to the Reform acts, enfranchising the lower classes of Brittain.

            Spencer’s ideas are derived from an elitist culture which dominated English government and society up until the industrial revolution.  The aristocracy which personified this culture, was of course always born into great wealth and opportunity, yet they saw the poor as defective, and blamed them for their condition in English society and culture.  This elitism prevented any type of measure to be taken in order to distribute the wealth or representation in the nation, and supported a laissez-faire policy in regards to regulation of the economy or production.  Since the rich were running the government, for land requirements for voting rights allowed only five percent of all male adults to vote, there would be virtually no desire to extend the vote to the middle and lower classes.  In addition, the growing northern industrial cities which yielded much bourgeousie influence and power, did not have nearly as much representation as older and less populated aristocratic boroughs in the south.  As these northern cities grew even more, and the needs and influence of the bourgeousie became more apparent in the national scope, a movement for change began.  The aristocracy feared the growth of bourgeousie, and they felt threatened by their success in the capitalist market.  There emerged an animosity between the cultured and traditional upper class, and the rising and liberal bourgeousie.  The aristocracy wanted to stunt the growth and support of the bourgeousie, and they therefore embraced the laborer’s cause, calling for governemnt intervention of industrialization and work conditions.

            When in 1815, only five percent of all adult males had the vote, and it was clear that much of the country was suffereing from economic and labor exploitation, a change was begining to seem inevitable.  Continually prospering entrepeneurs in the north had influence and power, yet had no legitimate voice in Parliament.  Disgruntled at there lack of influence in the legislation of the country, there stronghold in the nations prosperity persuaded Parliament to pass acts which would give them more representation.  This sent the nation into an era unlike any before in England history.  The aristocracy, in fear of too much power being handed over to the bourgeousie, called for more sufferage to the lower classes, and an increase of state controlled work conditions.  Benthem’s ideals were shining through, even though it was done without his actual intentions.  It doubtlessly ironic that the movement which sought to empower and strengthen the nation, was spawned from greed and elitism.  Nevertheless, the poor were no longer being held accountable for their status and poverty, but were now being given relief and hope that they might leave successful lives.  While the general trend of the upper class was to use enfranchisment to undermine the middle class, there was also deep concern on the rich’s part that the poor were truely suffereing.  Many credit Benthem as being the founder of the “welfare state,” even though he did not intend to use heavy governmental influence to achieve his hedonistic image of society.

Main Menu

• Benthem vs. Spencer
• Positive Liberty vs. Negative Liberty
• Reform Act
• Links
• Conclusion