Critical Notes - A USEFUL, HAPPY BENTHAM: WHO SAVED HIM FROM MILL? WHEN FREEDOM IS MORE THAN JUST A MATTER OF TASTE

When it comes to Bentham, both pro- and anti-utilitarianists are profoundly challenged by the hedonist inheritance that has been deeply criticized, undermined, and somewhat overshadowed by the Millian perspective, which confined the presuppositions of a higher and clearer moral purism within the logical framework of satisfaction and happiness. Since the real test of Bentham’s philosophy lies in the requirements of asceticism, which are, at least at first glance, incompatible with hedonism, the major difficulty seems to be that of using both his moral writings and aesthetic considerations on pleasure and taste to face such a challenge. Would a Romantic Bentham still be valuable for the legacy of modern political philosophy? To what extent might literary figures rely on Bentham to save and protect free speech, and how much do theologians find the Benthamite perspectives on sympathies and antipathies, love and hate, acceptable? Should anyone save Bentham from being just an architect of the panopticon, by refashioning his philosophy as a pragmatic, more human, or even more altruistic utilitarianism than that of Mill, which invariably conquered the liberals? Could we defy reality for a moment, projecting a possible world in which a visit to a museum with Bentham would convince us that there is no such thing as good or bad taste, only a higher or lower amount of pleasure that we feel contemplating art and consuming culture? Finally, who could imagine Bentham happy?