RESEARCH QUESTION

PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF HEDONISTIC CALCULUS

Bentham’s utilitarianism is a teleological theory and views the validity of an action based on its
ramification. His theory of utility is mentioned in the 4th chapter of “The Principles of Morals
and Legislation”. His main focus is on the greatest good of greatest number and to achieve his
goal, he has devised mathematical operations. Greatest good of greatest number could be
calculated by measuring the total pleasure minus the total pain of the total population. Bentham
views pleasure and pain as quantitative units and tries to put these quantitative units into
mathematical operation to calculate the total pleasure and pain. Applicability of Bentham’s
calculus has been questioned by many scholars over time. Some are in favour while others
disregard it completely. Both the aspects are discussed in this paper.

Greatest good of Greatest number:

Man is governed by two masters- pleasure and pain. Bentham’s ideology of greatest good of
greatest number is aimed at imparting justice. In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation1, court held that the pavement dwellers form more than 50% of the total population
and thus cannot be evicted. Justice Chandrachud held that the aim of the state is to give pleasure
to the people. He bought the concept of hedonistic calculus in the Indian jurisprudence. “Their
intention or object in doing so is not to "commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy any
person", which is the gist of the offence of 'Criminal trespass' under Section 441 of the Penal
Code. They manage to find a habitat in places which are mostly filthy or marshy, out of sheet
helplessness. It is not as if they have a free choice to exercise as to whether to commit an
encroachment and if so, where. The encroachments committed by these persons are involuntary
acts in the sense that those acts are compelled by inevitable circumstances and are not guided by
choice. Here, as elsewhere in the law of Torts, a balance has to be struck between competing sets
of values.....”2

1
Olga Tellis & Ors v. Bombay municipal corporation, AIR1985 SC 545
2 Ibid
Constitution is the highest law and the custodian of the rights of every individual. It guarantees
equal protection of rights to all its citizens. Justice cannot be imparted if only the happiness of
the majority is taken into account as propounded by Bentham.

In the case of Navtej Singh Johar and ors.v. Union of India3, chief justice Deepak Misra held
that “the society as a whole or even a miniscule part of the society may aspire and prefer
different things for themselves. They are perfectly competent to have such a freedom to be
different,…”. He further added that whenever the constitutional validity of a particular provision
is challenged, it should be viewed rationally no matter “whether the said section of the society is
a minority or a majority…the idea of number… is like zero on the left side of any number”4.

Same was reiterated by Justice Chandrachud in the above mentioned case. If we view this case
through Bentham’s utilitarian glasses, justice would not be imparted to the LGBTQI community
of India. Since the LGBTQI community is a miniscule part of this country, their happiness holds
less importance than the happiness of the conventionally straight people. Bentham’s utilitarian
principle was used by the Supreme Court in the earlier case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz
foundation5, which was rejected in the present case.

A similar reasoning could be seen in the Sabrimala case where Supreme Court removed the
decades old ban on the entry of women in Sabrimala temple. Women constitute 48.5% of the
total population in India and according to operations of the felicific calculus a sum total of their
pleasure is less. This ideology of greatest good of greatest number could not be the sole
reasoning for denying a particular section their basic rights.

In Dudley and Stephens case6, if the court held that killing of one person even for the benefit of
others is not just. Had the utilitarian approach of Bentham was followed; the killing would have
been justified. This leads us to the second aspect of Bentham’s hedonic calculus i.e. the
measurement of pleasure and pain.

Pleasure and Pain:

3 Navtej singh johar & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 76

4 Ibid
5 Suresh kumar koushal v. naz foundation, AIR 2013
6
R v. Dudley and Stephens, 1881, All ER Rep 61
Pleasure and pain are neither quantitative and nor objective components and thus, cannot be
calculated. What is pleasant for one could be painful for other and vice versa. Though he
suggested 7 parameters, yet the actual total pleasure and pain could not be ascertained. The
qualitative components such as pleasure and pain could not be calculated quantitatively.

How can one measure the intensity i.e the first parameter to ascertain one of the fourteen simple
pleasures? How can one put his emotion or feeling of pleasure quantitatively let alone compare it
with the pleasure and pain of others. How can one compare the pleasure that one get holding his
child for the first time and the pleasure he get on achieving his lifelong dream. For some the birth
of the child is of greater pleasure than achieving any lifelong dream for others vice versa.
According to Bentham, humans can experience higher pleasure than animal. An animal can
experience pleasure while eating leaves, while it takes more to make man feel pleasure. Who is
to define this higher pleasure? Reading a classic novel could provide higher pleasure to some
while watching a cheesy movie could provide higher pleasure to others. How can the intensity be
put in mathematical numbers? How can one be completely objective in comparing his own
pleasure with the pleasure of others and doing an act which provides greater pleasure to greater
number?

Bentham was an advocate of individual rights. Calculation of pleasure and pain and then
performing an act which provides greater pleasure can be plausible when acts of an individual
are considered, but the same could not be held when acts of two individuals are compared. When
choosing whether to follow ones passion or stability in life, Bentham’s calculus could be used to
ascertain which path is right for the individual.

Both the pleasure and pain for both the acts could be calculated and the better option could be
chosen. For instance, intensity, duration and propinquity could assimilate on the pleasure side of
following passion and the certainty and extent of pleasure could be on the side of stability in life.
The quantity of pleasure in the breast of the monarch will naturally be greater than the quantity
in the breast of the labourer: . . . But …by how many times greater? Fifty times? Hundred times?
Thousand times? This is assuredly more than any man would take upon himself to say7. But, the
same could not be done when the interests of two individuals coincide. Bentham is not clear as to

7Wesley c. Mitchell, “Bentham’s felicific calculus”, Academy of political science, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun.,
1918)
whether an act should be performed if it gives pleasure to one but pain to the one it is subjected
to. Rightness of an act could not be ascertained when a person gets sadistic pleasure on
committing an act.

Pleasure and pain coincide sometimes. Occasionally, the boundary between the pleasure and the
pain fades. The pleasure often results from pain. Pregnancy and child birth cause immense pain
but it results in immense pleasure to the parents once the child is born. Runner’s high is another
such example. After intense physical workout and exertion, the runner experiences a sense of
complete euphoria due to the release of a specific enzyme called opioids.

Crying (considered as pain in Bentham’s calculus) after a rough day causes pleasure and makes
the person happy. Euthanasia is another case in which pleasure and pain seem to coincide. When
a person is terminally ill, he is in a lot of pain. So by mercy killing, he is being relieved of the
pain. Relieving that person of the pain is pleasurable, though the parting is painful. In Aruna
Shanbaug’s case8, after suffering for 42 years in pain she was relieved of it in 2015. Her death
was painful but relieving her of her pain gave immense pleasure to her friends who fought for
her. He tries to put the complex human emotions in set parameters of antagonism. Pain and
pleasure according to Bentham are antagonistic in nature like push-pull, night-day etcetera,
which does not hold true in practical world. In practical world, there is a thin divide between
pleasure and pain and sometimes that line blurs.

The debate of environment v. development is expected to be solved by Bentham’s calculus. In

this case the total pleasure and pain can be calculated according to Bentham’s felicific calculus.
States have been developed at the expense of environment. Planting a tree would provide better
breathable air in long term. Everyone will benefit from the planting of the tree. It would provide
greater pleasure to greater number.

The case of stubble burning in the state of Punjab poses severe threat to the health of its
residents. For farmers, however, the process of stubble burning is important to get rid of the
leftover paddy stacks. It causes pain to the people, in totality, rather than pleasure. So, the state to
minimize the damage has devised laws to be followed to maintain the quality of air. In such

8 Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India, AIR 2009 SC 115

cases, where for the benefit of majority the interests of the minority are not affected, Bentham’s
calculus is still viable today.