1. The Greatest Happiness Principle
and
the Principle of Enlightened Interest:
Jean-Baptiste Say
and
Jeremy Bentham
Marco E.L. Guidi
University of Pisa
Department of Economics

2. 1815-1819. Jean-Baptiste Say’s
lectures at the Athénée of Paris
Say, J.-B. (2003a), Leçons d’économie
politique, texte établi et présenté par G.
Jacoud et Ph. Steiner, in Id., Oeuvres
complètes, Vol. 4, Paris: Economica.
Two sessions (4 bis and 5, 1818-19)
concern the “principle of utility”
“Essai sur le principe d'utilité”, in
Mélanges et correspondances
d'économie politique, Ch. Comte ed.
(1833), projected as 6th part of Cours
complet d'économie politique pratique
(1829-30). Probably written at the
latter date.

3. 5th March 1829
Letter to Etienne Dumont (1759-
1829)
Say asks him to write an essay that
should replace his draft.
Dumont hesitates  forced to
renounce because of health reasons
(letter of 21st July)

4. Two arguments:
1st argument.
The principle of utility is not an
egoistic philosophy, since it does not
prescribe to individuals to follow up
their immediate self-interest in every
circumstance
“the man who lives in society, when he first seeks his personal utility,
disregarding what is profitable to the others, is guilty of egoism; and
this is at the same time a vice and bad calculation” (Say 2003a: 131)

5. 2nd argument.
Subscribing to the principle of utility
or greatest happiness principle
(hereafter: GHP) is the best way of
pursuing one’s well understood
interest or enlightened interest
(hereafter: EI)
“But the social man, who measures the estimation he makes of things
on the more or less utility they have for man, that is to say, who
measures this estimation on the greatest happiness for the greatest
number, is eminently virtuous; and [...] not only his principles reveal a
praiseworthy sentiment, but on the whole they produce the most real
and most durable good, both for the humanity, and for the nation, and
for himself” (Say 2003a: 131)

6. Consequences of these two arguments:
Vice = bad calculation 
Enlightenment 
It is of the utmost importance “to take
cognizance of the consequences of
things [..]. Therefore, enlightenment is
necessary to morals” (Say 2003a: 134)
 Political economy
“... practical politics shows us the chain of causes and effects in the
political order; political economy [...] the chain of causes and effects
relative to the interests of man in society” (Say 2003a: 367)

7. A word of caution:
• Say's argument:  subscribing to the GHP is the best way
to pursue EI
• This argument does not necessarily entail the reverse: 
following EI necessarily produces the greatest happiness of
all.
• Nevertheless, Say often insists that there is a large identity
between general utility and individual EI.

8. Questions raised by Say’s
arguments:
1. is (enlightened) self-interest a
sufficient condition for acting in
accordance with the GHP?
2. Is the GHP equivalent to another
principle, the “principle of
enlightened interest” (hereafter:
EIP)?
Structure of the paper:
1. a theoretical comparison between the GHP and the EIP
2. A comparison between Say’s and Bentham’s arguments about
the correspondence between GHP and EIP

9. 1. The Greatest Happiness
Principle and the Enlightened
Interest Principle
Say:
The GHP ultimately
coincides with EI  EIP
John Stuart Mill
Utilitarianism
(1861):
The GHP demands
enlightened self-sacrifice

10. J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 1861:
“The utilitarian morality does
recognise in human beings the
power of sacrificing their own
greatest good for the good of
others. It only refuses to admit
that the sacrifice is itself a good. A
sacrifice which does not increase,
or tend to increase, the sum total
of happiness, it considers as
wasted. The only self-renunciation
which it applauds, is devotion to
the happiness, or to some of the
means of happiness, of others;
either of mankind collectively, or
of individuals within the limits
imposed by the collective interests
of mankind”.

11. A definition of EIP:
1. [empirical statement] Individuals normally act according to
self-interest;
2. [empirical statement] Self-interest is either short-minded
(taking account of direct consequences of actions only) or
enlightened (taking account of both direct and remote
consequences of actions);
3. [normative principle] Individuals should aim at their EI: only
by acting in this way they satisfy their ultimate self-interest.

12. Individuals must evaluate their EI
J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation (1789) chapter 4:
7 “circumstances”:
1. Intensity
2. Duration
3. Certainty or uncertainty
4. Remoteness or propinquity
Only concerning the 5. Fecundity
agent
6. Purity
Irrelevant to EIP 7. Extent

13. Example: I want to obtain satisfaction for a damage
produced by my neighbour due to carelessness
Case 1. Evaluation of consequences under EIP
Immediate Remote Balance of
Alternative consequences consequences immediate and
to the agent: to the agent: remote
net pleasure of damages consequences
satisfaction caused by to the agent
counter-
measures
A. Punch 10 -15 -5
B. Not acting -5 0 -5
C. Law-suit 5 0 5
“Purity” dimension

14. However, consequences on my neighbour happiness (« extent
dimension ») are not considered under EIP  they are
considered under GHP
Case 2. Evaluation of immediate consequences under GHP
Immediate Immediate Aggregate
Alternative consequences consequences balance
to the agent: to the (immediate
net pleasure of neighbour: consequences
satisfaction pains to both
generated by individuals
the agent's involved)
actions
A. Punch 10 -11 -1
B. Not acting -5 0 -5
C. Law-suit 5 -5 0
 The prescription is identical under EI and GHP

15. However, considering the high transaction costs of a law-suit (or
any additional trouble to the plaintiff) might turn the balance in
favour of alternative A. This is not the case if we consider
indirect consequences
Case 3. Evaluation of both immediate and remote
consequences under GHP
Alternative Immediate Immediate Remote Remote Total
consequenc consequenc consequenc consequenc balance
es to the es to the es to the es to third (immediate
agent: net neighbour: agent: parties and remote
pleasure of pains damages (externaliti consequenc
satisfaction generated caused by es) es to all
by the counter- individuals
agent's measures involved)
actions
A. Punch 10 -11 -15 -20 -36
B. Not -5 0 0 0 -5
acting
C. Law-suit 5 -5 0 0 0

16.  The same line of conduct is recommended under both EI and
GHP, although with different motivations. But this is not
necessarily true in all cases:
Case 4. Evaluation of consequences under EIP adding a fourth
alternative
Immediate Remote Balance of
Alternative consequences consequences immediate and
to the agent: to the agent: remote
net pleasure of damages consequences
satisfaction caused by to the agent
counter-
measures
A. Punch 10 -15 -5
B. Not acting -5 0 -5
C. Law-suit 5 0 5
D. Scandal 10 0 10

17. EIP recommends alternative D.
However this alternative is not recommended by GHP:
Case 5. Evaluation of consequences under GHP adding a fourth
alternative
Immediate Immediate Remote Remote Total
Alternative consequenc consequenc consequenc consequenc balance
es to the es to the es to the es to third (immediate
agent: net neighbour: agent: parties and remote
pleasure of pains damages (externaliti consequenc
satisfaction generated caused by es) es to all
by the counter- individuals
agent's measures involved)
actions
A. Punch 10 -11 -15 -20 -36
B. Not -5 0 0 0 -5
acting
C. Law-suit 5 -5 0 0 0
D. Scandal 10 -10 0 -20 -20

18.  EIP and GHP:
- Both are consequentialist ethical theories
- Both are welfarist ethical theories
- They often lead to convergent choices
- Different circumstances taken into
account
- Different value criteria
- They may lead to different choices
- GHP: altruistic and universalistic: self-
sacrifice admitted
- EIP: egoistic and non-universalistic: self-
preference and (only) unintended positive
benefits on others

19. 2. Say and Bentham on general
utility and individual interests
Say argues that it is reasonable for an individual to choose the
GHP as a rule of action.
 Acting according to the GHP is in the EI of an individual
 There is a convergence between the GHP and the EIP.
Enlarged EIP (EEIP):
- it is possible to observe a comprehensive EIP only
by adopting the GHP

20. Objections:
1. Convergence is not always possible (see sect. 1 above)
2. Convergence is more probable if morality is limited (as Says
seems to believe) to the rules of prudence and justice.
3. But the GHP demands « benevolence » and self-sacrifice. It
would be paradoxical to argue that these virtues are in the EI
of an individual.

21. Alternative interpretation: one of the two principles is the
ethical rule and the other a method of deliberation.
EEIP 1:
(1) Moral principle: in order to be ethically correct and
obligatory an action must be guided by the EIP;
(2) Method of deliberation: since it is impossible to foresee the
reactions of others to our choices, the GHP provides the best
guide to action. Every action that satisfies the GHP is
probably the surest way to accomplish the EIP.
Objections:
1. GHP is problematic as method of deliberation
2. This interpretation does not capture Say’s recommendation
of GHP as an ethical principle

22. Thus the correct interpretation could be the reverse:
EEIP 2:
(1) Moral principle: in order to be ethically correct and
obligatory an action must be guided by the GHP;
(2) Method of deliberation: since individuals are normally
guided by their personal interest, the surest way to realise
the GHP is to enlighten the people about the consequences
of their actions, suggesting them to adopt the EIP as a rule
for deliberation.
Objection:
- Deliberations based on EIP do not always lead to GHP (see
sect. 1 and above)

23. Another possible explanation:
• This explanation is grounded on a passage in which Say
argues that individuals are legitimated to abstain from
sacrificing (even) their (enlightened) interest to the general
interest of society:
“We may raise doubts on the maxim that general interest,
supposing it loyally ascertained, should always prevail on
private interests. This maxim could induce to sacrifice a
private innocent individual to the interest of a guilty public,
and lead us back to those barbarian ages in which some
nations offered human victims to Heaven in order to endear
themselves to it (Say 2003a: 127)”.
 “Paretian-liberal”, anti-totalitarian interpretation

24. EEIP 2.1 (EIP-limited GHP):
(1.1) Moral principle: in order to be ethically correct an action
must be guided by the GHP;
(1.2) Moral principle: it is legitimate to refuse to sacrifice one's
EI to general happiness; the GHP is not obligatory and it is
limited by the EIP;
(2) Method of deliberation: since individuals are normally
guided by their personal interest, the surest way to realise
the GHP limited by the EIP is to enlighten the people about
the consequences of their actions, suggesting them to adopt
the EIP as a rule for deliberation.
Objections:
1. Principle 1.2 provides no unique solution in case of conflict
over the distribution of scarce resources;
2. The happiness value of EIPs combinations may be lower than
that generated by the GHP (no enlightened self-sacrifice)

25. Say probably believes that no total (or radical) sacrifice of
some individuals can really maximise aggregate utility.
« Invisible Hand » + EI view: a spontaneous order of
individuals pursuing their EI generates the highest aggregate
happiness.
 Say’s political economy
However EEIP 2.1. is not a consistent ethical principle:
- (1.1) GHP is not obligatory;
- (1.2) EIP dominates over GHP.
- thus (1.1) is redundant
 Despite his allegiance to the GHP, Say propounds EIP
(or EIP1) as an ethical principle.

26. Jeremy Bentham
1. his definition of the GHP prescribes to
maximise aggregate utility and presupposes
ability to detach oneself from self-interest.
2. the “self-preference principle” formulated in
Constitutional Code (1830) is a prudential “as
if” clause valid only in legislation (≅ Hume).
3. in Deontology (1814-1831) benevolence is
contemplated among motivations.

27. 4. in Deontology Bentham works out a strategy based on the
education of interests, but in order to make
benevolence, not EI possible.
a. sufficient condition: the positive “marginal utility” of
universal benevolence. The sight of a stranger “in a state of
apparent comfort” is gratifying for an individual, and
although the intensity of such a benevolent sentiment
diminishes as the number of persons involved increases,
any addition in the number generates an increase of
benevolence (Bentham 1814-1831: 129).
b. necessary condition “By every act of virtuous beneficence
which a man exercises, he contributes to a sort of fund – a
sort of Saving Bank – a sort of fund of general Good-will,
out of which services of all sorts may be looked for as about
to flow on occasion out of other hands into his” (ibid.: 184).
c. “virtuous beneficence” means beneficence inspired by
benevolence.

28. Conclusions
EIP:
- it ignores enlightened self-sacrifice to the general interest;
- it does not prescribe supererogatory actions, or it prescribes
them only moderately;
- it is potentially more liberal albeit less consistent than the
GHP.