Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24 apparently to stop NATO’s further expansion into its neighbourhood. But in less than three months, the same invasion has pushed two countries in that neighbourhood to consider NATO membership. Last week, the Prime Minister and President of Finland, which has stayed neutral since the end of the Second World War, said they hoped their country would apply for NATO membership ”without delay”. Sweden, which has stayed out of military alliances for 200 years, stated that NATO membership would strengthen its national security and stability in the Baltic and Nordic regions. If these two countries now formally apply for membership, it would be the biggest strategic setback for Russian President Vladimir Putin whose most important foreign policy focus has been on weakening NATO. Particularly alarming for Russia is the case of Finland, with which it has a hostile past. Stalin invaded Finland in 1939 demanding more territories. Though the Red Army struggled in the initial phase of the war, it forced Finland to sign the Moscow Peace Treaty, ceding some 9% of its territory. But a year later, the Finns, in an alliance with the German Nazis, attacked the Soviet troops. Peace was established along the 1,340-km Finnish-Russian border after the Nazis were defeated in the Second World War. Now, Ukraine appears to have deepened the security concerns of Finland and Sweden. It is still not clear whether these countries would be inducted into NATO any time soon. Within the alliance, decisions are taken unanimously. Turkey has already expressed its opposition to taking the Nordic countries in. While the U.S. and the U.K. are pushing for NATO’s expansion, Germany and France have taken a more cautious line. Hungary, which has deep ties with Russia and has already held up the EU’s plan to ban Russian oil imports, has not made its views clear. But the mere declaration of intent by Finland and Sweden to join NATO has sent tensions in Europe soaring, with Russia threatening ’military and technical’ retaliation. Normatively speaking, Finland and Sweden are sovereign countries and free to take decisions on joining any alliance. It is up to NATO to decide whether they should be taken in or not. But a bigger question these countries as well as Europe as a whole face is whether another round of expansion of NATO would help bring in peace and stability in Europe, particularly at a time when the continent is facing a pre-First World War-type security competition. It would escalate the current crisis between nuclear-armed Russia and NATO to dangerous levels. Already the several rounds of NATO expansion and Russia’s territorial aggression have brought the world to its most dangerous moment since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Russia should immediately halt the war and all the stakeholders should focus on finding a long-term solution to the crisis.
During Bentham’s lifetime, revolutions occurred in the American colonies and in France, producing the Bill of Rights and the Declaration des Droits deHomme (Declaration of the Rights of Man), both of which were based on liberty, equality, and self-determination. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Revolutionary movements broke out that year in France, Italy, Austria, Poland, and elsewhere. In addition, the Indus trial Revolution transformed Great Britain and eventually the rest of Europe from an agrarian (farm-based) society into an industrial one, in which steam and coal increased manufacturing production dramatically, changing the nature of work, property ownership, and family. This period also included advances in chemistry, astronomy, navigation, human anatomy, and im munology, among other sciences.
Given this historical context, it is understandable that Bentham used reason and science to explain human behaviour. His ethical system was an attempt to quantify happiness and the good so they would meet the conditions of the scientific method. Ethics had to be empirical, quantifiable, verifiable, and reproducible across time and space. Just as science was beginning to understand the workings of cause and effect in the body, so ethics would explain the causal relationships of the mind. Bentham rejected religious authority and wrote a rebuttal to the Declaration of Independence in which he railed against natural rights as “rhetorical nonsense, nonsense upon stilts.” Instead, the fundamental unit of human action for him was utility—solid, certain, and factual.
What is utility? Bentham’s fundamental axiom, which underlies utilitarianism, was that all so cial morals and government legislation should aim for producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism, therefore, emphasizes the consequences or ultimate purpose of an act rather than the character of the actor, the actor’s motivation, or the particu lar circumstances surrounding the act. It has these characteristics: (1) universality, because it applies to all acts of human behaviour, even those that appear to be done from altruistic mo tives; (2) objectivity, meaning it operates beyond individual thought, desire, and perspective; (3) rationality, because it is not based in metaphysics or theology; and (4) quantifiability in its reliance on utility.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”.
This statement, in spite of literal inaccuracy in its every phrase, served the purpose for which it was written. It expressed an aspiration, and it was a fighting slogan. In order that slogans may serve their purpose, it is necessary that they shall arouse strong, emotional belief, but it is not at all necessary that they shall be literally accurate. A large part of each human being’s time on earth is spent in declaiming about his “rights,” asserting their existence, complaining of their violation, describing them as present or future, vested or contingent, absolute or conditional, perfect or inchoate, alienable or inalienable, legal or equitable, in rem or in personam, primary or secondary, moral or jural (legal), inherent or acquired, natural or artificial, human or divine. No doubt still other adjectives are available. Each one expresses some idea, but not always the same idea even when used twice by one and the same person.
They all need definition in the interest of understanding and peace. In his table of correlatives, Hohfeld set “right” over against “duty” as its necessary correlative. This had been done num berless times by other men. He also carefully distinguished it from the concepts expressed in his table by the terms “privilege,” “power,” and “immunity.” To the present writer, the value of his work seems beyond question and the practical convenience of his classification is convincing. However, the adoption of Hohfeld’s classification and the correlating of the terms “right” and “duty” do not complete the work of classification and definition.