David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, and J. S. Mill each rationalize the idea that the political authority of governments is derived from the utility principle. The utility principle, as defined by Bentham, “approves or disapproves of every action according to the tendency it appears to have to increase or lessen… the happiness of the person or group.” In contrast, John Locke claims the political authority of governments is based upon a social contract entered into by the individuals of a society. Following Locke’s argumentation, this contract endows the sovereign with political authority over those who consent to its existence. This essay compares the merits of the opposing justifications presented by Utilitarianism and the social contract theory for political authority through outlining the relevant arguments and discussing the major challenges posed to them. While the utilitarian rationalization for political authority is adequate in certain situations, the contradictory matters of distributing justice among the community and attempting to maximize utility make evident that the social contract presents a more widely legitimate justification for the authority wielded by governments.
Utilitarians make the broad claim that every action and decision made by mankind is made with respect to the amount of pleasure or pain an act is expected to bring to the individual or group in question. These general concepts of pleasure and pain “point out what we ought to do and determine what we shall do” and regulate “the standard of right and wrong.” Therefore, under this explanation, morality and justice depend entirely on the principle of utility, as well as the consequences that actions have on the amount of pleasure or pain felt by those affected by the actions.
Hume presents government as having the solitary purpose of distributing justice. As individuals are met with temptations “it is impossible to keep [them], faithfully and unerringly, in the paths of justice.” This notion necessitates a body that can act to punish transgressors whose actions disregard human nature. This body must then demand obedience from those whose actions it evaluates. In providing the distribution of justice throughout the people, the government maximizes the happiness experienced by the community. The purpose of government therefore is to oversee the utility of the community over which it has domain.
In the Utilitarian school of thought with regard to political authority, the origin of government is brought about by the act of distributing justice. Due to the nature of justice to protect peace and order within societies, mankind has a “visible interest in the impartial administration of justice.” As an example of how justice can lead to political authority, Hume describes an individual who has gained power in the state of war. This individual acts against everything that disturbs his society and against that which goes against human nature. This person then accrues power through the individuals who follow him in action against the ailments of his society. This power can take the form of an army or the ability to siphon revenue from the community in order to guarantee this justice, at which point the obedience required of those in the community is no longer an active choice, but a demand met passively. In this way, Utilitarianism explains the origin of government as a response by a community to the utility provided by a specific individual or individuals in the pursuit of justice.
The distribution of justice, and the government that sees this justice served, are legitimized by adherence to the principle of utility. As mankind’s only basis of worth is the avoidance of pain and the spreading of happiness, the existence of a government with authority over its subjects is justified by its effect on those it oversees. Mill describes the harm principle as the basis on which governments should act in order to produce the most utility possible and, in doing so, justify their existence. This principle is the idea that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Bentham claims a measure of government that conforms to the principle of utility is a “law or dictate” and Mill’s harm principle provides legitimacy to the government acts that produce justice as an extension of the natural political authority governments accrue through their usefulness to communities. Thus the political authority of governments, the justice these governments distribute, and the laws that they produce to protect the happiness of individuals are all grounded in the principle of utility.
Objections to the Utilitarian approach to political authority often take the form of moral arguments. Take for example an area that has been traumatized by anonymous murders to the point that the community has begun rioting. The community suspects one individual whom the authorities have proof is innocent. However, the authorities have reason to believe that the murders have concluded. In order to stop the rioting, and bring the greatest possible utility to all, the authorities could execute the innocent man. The principle of utility demands this action, assuming the value of the riots stopping outweighs the value of the innocent individual’s life, yet the natural moral inclination of individuals goes against this conclusion. This suggests that the justice provided through the use of the principle of utility is at points incongruent with the idea of justice that a government should distribute to its community.
The justification for the political authority of governments that Locke provides does not draw on the principle of utility, but rather the consent of those that belong to the community. In choosing to give up the freedoms that the state of nature provides, each individual “puts himself under an obligation to everyone in that society to submit to the decisions of the majority, and to be bound by it.” This agreement, entered into by each member of the created community, serves as the origin of government for those such as Locke who support the ideas of the social contract.
As the sovereign is empowered by individuals ceding some of their natural rights to the state, it is this consent from which the sovereign derives its justification for political authority. Locke goes so far as to claim that this consent “is the only thing that did or could give a beginning to any lawful government in the world.” The cession of the individual right to punish other individuals for misdeeds is a step required for governments to be able to perform their functions, such as the distribution of justice. This consent is truly necessary for both legitimate political authority and the justification for its existence.
There arises a difficulty for consent to the original contract of a sovereign as a justification of political authority as new individuals are introduced or born into it. The new individuals have the same natural rights as those who actively consented to the creation of this government, yet they have not made this active choice. However, Locke claims that individuals give their tacit consent to the sovereign through their use and enjoyment of the land the government controls. This tacit consent does not “make him a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that commonwealth.” These individuals then are free to choose another sovereign to whom they can give active consent. This hypothetically sufficient explanation does not justify the citizenship granted to individuals at birth in societies today, yet this may be due to a deficiency of the governments and not of Locke’s argument.
Though the principle of utility is convincing in defining how individuals act, and the Utilitarian explanation of the origin of political authority is plausible, the moral incongruities that a Utilitarian government presents leave much to be desired in the type of justice this form of government would distribute. For if political authority is derived from the benefit a government brings its community, but the community would revolt at the immoral acts committed to acquire that benefit, how is the authority of the government just? The justification of the social contract—the consent to majority rule combined with the foregoing of the natural rights provided to man—provides a government with the authority to protect the rights of the members of its community. Although the tacit consent given by individuals to their states today is insufficient to justify the power wielded by their governments, the argument provided by Locke and the concept of active consent given by individuals better justifies the political authority governments possess than benefits derived for the community at large at whatever cost.