prior probability

I will resume my series on the paradox of politics in my next post; in the meantime, enjoy:

Why do I include the English social reformer Jeremy Bentham (1748-1843) in my survey on the “paradox of politics”? Because Bentham’s solution to the law-liberty dilemma is at once novel, original, and extremely dangerous! Before Bentham, the main goal of most Anglo-American political philosophers was to find a way of protecting us from each other while at the same time preserving or maximizing our natural liberty. Bentham’s approach, by contrast, replaces this emphasis on natural liberty with a totally new and alternative criterion. Simply put, Bentham would swap out liberty for utility. In his landmark work on “The Principles of Morals and Legislation” (first published in 1780!), Bentham presents a crude version of act-utilitarianism:

By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whasoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question …. I say of every action whasoever; and therefore not only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government. (Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780), reprinted in Cohen 2018, p. 365, emphasis added)

In other words, the “principle of utility” is not only total–it applies to every decision, whether made by a private individual or by a collective body–it is also exclusive of any other moral or political value. Life, liberty, and property (and any other natural right, for that matter) are not just secondary values; they are irrelevant! And that, in a nutshell, is why Bentham’s appeal to utility is so dangerous. To see why, consider the following thought experiment inspired by Bernard William’s “Jim and the Indians” scenario (see here or here, for example): if killing an innocent man, enslaving him, or expropriating his wealth would promote the overall good or happiness of everyone else, then by all means: execute him, put him in chains, or steal his stuff. We are not only morally justified in violating the innocent man’s rights; the principle of utility, when taken to its logical conclusion, would require us to do so!

Suffice it to say that subsequent generations of utilitarians have tried to salvage Bentham’s utility criterion in many different ways. (Peter Singer, for example, famously expands the circle of people, including animals, whose interests we must include in our moral calculus.) Among the most heroic attempts to rescue utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill’s. More specifically, as we shall see in my next post, Mill qualifies the principle of utility in three ways …

I will resume my series on the paradox of politics in the next day or two. Today, however, I will be attending the SpaceU Symposium at my home institution, the University of Central Florida, where I will be presenting my work (with Justin W. Evans) on the pros and cons of outer space markets. In summary, outer space orbits, especially in Low Earth Orbit, are becoming more congested. Currently, however, we are giving away these orbits for free. Why not create property rights in orbits instead?

Last month (October 2025), I wrote up a series of blog posts on “the paradox of politics”: the perennial tension between law and liberty, coercion and consent, authority and autonomy. More specifically, I surveyed four of the greatest Anglo-American minds in modern political philosophy: Thomas Hobbes (see here), John Locke (here), David Hume (here and here), and James Madison (here, here, and here). Although these “Four Horsemen of Modern Political Philosophy” present competing solutions to the paradox, they agree on one thing: they define liberty as the freedom to pursue one’s private interests. But is that how we should define the concept of liberty? What other definitions are possible? Starting on Saturday (8 Nov.), I will resume my survey on the paradox of politics with another quartet of European political theorists: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Alexis de Tocqueville. As we shall soon see, the members of this competing camp of great minds attempt to solve the law-liberty dilemma in one of two ways: either by presenting a different conception of freedom or by rejecting the idea of natural liberty altogether!

That is the title of this new book-length defense of space exploration, which I have also added to my ever-expanding Thanksgiving week reading list! (I had the honor of meeting the author, the legendary space activist Rick Tumlinson, at a book-signing event on day two of this year’s National Space Society’s “Space Settlement Summit” at the University of Central Florida.)

That is the title of this paper by Namrata Goswami, a professor of space security at the USSF-Johns Hopkins University. I had the pleasure of meeting Professor Goswami at the National Space Society’s 2025 “Space Settlement Summit“, which is meeting at my home institution, the University of Central Florida. Suffice it to say that I have added Dr Goswami paper to my Thanksgiving-week reading list!

I will begin posting a new series on “the paradox of politics” in the next day or two; in the meantime, enjoy!

Let’s take a moment to celebrate the memory of our dearly departed loved ones. Or better yet, let’s build them an ofrenda (see here)!

Today (11/1) is All Saints Day. The painting pictured below (“All Saints Day I”) is one of four works created by the great Russian avant garde artist Wassily Kandinsky in 1911 to commemorate this solemn occasion. More details here.