The project invites difficult questions about measurement and aggregation. Different people’s experiences may resist comparison, and larger totals can conflict with protections for individuals. Bentham’s place in the web is therefore a starting point for examining welfare-based justification, rather than an assertion that every modern cost–benefit policy follows his philosophy.
Imagine evaluating a rule that imposes inconvenience on many people to prevent serious harm to a few. A Bentham-inspired inquiry asks about the strength and likelihood of each effect, rather than letting the larger head count settle the matter. State the assumptions behind the comparison and consider indirect consequences for trust. This makes the inquiry more demanding than a slogan about happiness: it requires both an account of welfare and evidence about what a rule does.