Talk:Jeremy Bentham

The article is a "whitewash" of Jeremy Bentham - giving a totally distorted view of his real opinions. And it is part of a group of distorting articles.

Jeremy Bentham did not just call natural rights "nonsense on stilts" - he called any rights AGAINST the state "nonsense". To Bentham the power of the state to push what it believed would be the "greatest happiness of the greatest number" should be unlimited, indeed he believed in 13 (or more) departments of state (made up of educated and trained officials) controlling most aspects of life. Like Sir Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes before him, Jeremy Bentham held that "law" is the commands, the will, of the ruler or rulers - he rejected the Common Law tradition, embodied in such legal thinkers as Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke and Chief Justice Sir John Holt, that law is something that checks (limits) the power of the ruler or rulers. Someone could read this article and not know the real opinions of Jeremy Bentham - in short Bentham is "whitewashed" by an article that is clearly dishonest (i.e. intended to deceive). I have noticed similar deceptive writing in articles on Wikipedia in relation to Sir Francis Bacon (of the "New Atlantis" and the great enemy of Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke), Sir William Petty (with his desire to mathematically plan Ireland and the Irish people), and Thomas Hobbes (the classic defender of tyranny - despotism) - men who were really in support of an absolutist state that could do what it liked (with no traditional limits to its power - and no way for ordinary people to change the government, or limit the power of the government), are presented in these articles as proto liberals in favour of political and economic freedom. In short these thinkers are TURNED ON THEIR HEADS by the Wikipedia articles concerning them.2A02:C7D:B48D:1200:C99A:364E:A628:D4EE (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Please read our policies on reliable sourcing, and then come back with some such sources. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

What could be more "reliable sourcing" than what these people themselves wrote? They made no secret of their political opinions. For example, Jeremy Bentham was quite open about holding that all rights against the state (not just natural rights or rights of "divine origin" as the article put it) were "nonsense" - to Mr Bentham it was for the state to decide what was for the "greatest good of the greatest number" and there were no rights against the state, no rights limiting state power. He made this clear again and again - and no one can honestly dispute that this was his position.2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:3C54:A735:E641:9A53 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The make specific suggestions for change, provide reliable sources according to WP:RS for your proposals, and we can then discuss it. Hysterical screeching and accusations of deliberate deception will achieve nothing, except ultimately a ban. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with DuncanHill, and I reverted the edits for a second time. While there might be some truth in what was added, the words and composition don't seem to reflect weighed study, but rather a zealous attempt to implement private findings and beliefs. Please proof my wrong by providing a written source that other editors and readers can rely upon. Eissink (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC).

José Cecilio del Valle

So now we have two sources in English to support
1. Bentham's "frequent" letter exchange with Valle, plus the fact
2. Valle received a hair lock Bentham sent him before dying, plus the fact that
3. Bentham sent Valle one of only 20 death icon rings.
Methinks the statement there was an intellectual link between the two men is fully supported. XavierItzm (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Myths about Jeremy Bentham's auto-icon

Hi,

I have just listened to episode 25 of The Boring Talks from BBC Radio 4. It is available for download for free at this website. This talk is given by the current (as of November 2018) curator of Jeremy Bentham's auto-icon Subhadra Das. Having listened to this talk, I was able to identify one of the prevalent myths about him that has been asserted over the years, and removed it (and an associated unreliable source) from the article. I'm really not very good with references, so if anyone could help turn the talk link into a usable reference, I would be happy to pad out the section on the auto-icon and explain what some of the myths are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjb72 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Birthplace

@GrindtXX: Thank you for the correction of my “correction” on the Jeremy Bentham page. The description (as you corrected it) is as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has it. However, I’m not able to locate Bentham’s birthplace on a map, or match a location to that description. Houndsditch is a street that leads directly to Saint Botolph’s Church on Saint Botolph’s (according to the link in the article). Perhaps the description in the article is suggesting he was born somewhere along or in the area of Houndsditch Street? (I don’t find a Church Lane, which you mentioned in your edit comment.) Can this be clarified? Thanks.Quarterpinion (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Bentham was born in his father's house in Church Lane: see also the introductory material to vol. 1 of his Correspondence, available online here, at pp. xxvii and xxxvi. Church Lane was a small street running off Houndsditch, immediately to the north-west of St Botolph's church, and forming the churchyard boundary. The street no longer exists, but appears on John Rocque's Map of London, 1746, in the top left corner of sheet 2F; also conveniently accessible, with links to the modern street map, here. Modern St Botolph Street now runs over it, on the same alignment. It lay in the parish of St Botolph without Aldgate – i.e. outside the city walls, but within the administrative City of London, in Portsoken ward. It might therefore fairly be said to have lain "in Houndsditch" (which, as well as being a street name, is used informally for the immediate surrounding district); "in the parish of St Botolph without Aldgate"; or "in Portsoken ward" (though the last would be pretty meaningless to most people) – but certainly not "in Spitalfields", which lay and lies further north and east. I don't know where the erroneous Spitalfields claim originated, but I've seen it repeated in several not-very-reliable sources. This article isn't the place to go into a huge amount of detail, but feel free to make some adjustments if you think you can make things a bit clearer. GrindtXX (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, that is a great response, and it's appreciated.Quarterpinion (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous Sentence

"He called for the abolition of slavery, capital punishment and physical punishment, including that of children.[9]" I can't tell if he called for the abolition of all those things, or only of slavery while calling for capital punishment and physical punishment, including that of children. I know he suggested the administration of corporal punishment by machine. Brucezas (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Referencing

Have tagged lots of incomplete short citations, which refer to works not apparently listed. Very common problem with sfn. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Welfarism

"whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism. He advocated individual and economic freedoms, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and (in an unpublished essay) the decriminalising of homosexual acts."

What does welfarism have to do with "individual and economic freedoms, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and (in an unpublished essay) the decriminalising of homosexual acts"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.245.25 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)