COLLECTIVE INTEREST VS - Lameta

likely to need—a degree of state intervention 19 . As a matter of fact, Benthamintroduces an economic means for managing judicial, political and non-marketissues. 20 The tension between the ‗is‘ and the ‗ought‘ is not just a problem ofadjudication; Bentham proposes an economic means of dealing with it. Deeperunderstanding of the character of the artificial identification of interests is thereforethe most fitting way to analyze the issue of the linkage between the is and the ought.We direct our attention to those specific cases where an artificial identification ofinterests is required: how to ensure that individual actions, arising from decisionsmade at the individual level, might respect the principle of utility defined at thecollective level. It should be recalled that the positive principle applies at theindividual level, while the normative principle applies at the collective level. We hencehave to deal with two issues: the positive vs. normative problem on the one hand,and individual interests vs. collective interest on the other. We contend that simplystating this distinction is likely to be merely confusing, and that a clear statement ofthe link between each of the levels is necessary.Even though, to be meaningful, the normative principle requires an aggregation stage,both the positive and the normative principles rely on individual interests and henceon the utility of the things or actions leading to this interest. If there exists a tensionbetween the hedonic and the ethical principles, between individual interests and thecollective interest, it should be clearly enough revealed via the process of definingindividual utility.A reformulation of the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ issueThis movement from `is‘ to `ought‘ and back, between the individual and thecollective level, is constantly present in the texts devoted to Bentham‘s ―felicificcalculus‖. 21 To clarify my argument I will first introduce some notation, assummarized in table 1, to be used in the following discussion.19 On this see Sigot (1993; 2001).20 ―It should not be forgotten than political economy was for Bentham a branch of the science oflegislation‖ Guidi (2002: 176). In this perspective, Bentham created the ―pre-history‖ of welfareeconomics and of the economic analysis of law.21 See the references to different treatments of the utility calculus in Mitchell (1918: 164). See also Guidi(2007).7