In her influential book of _ A Turn to Empire _, J. Pitts argues that Bentham’s project was very different from later British liberal aspiration to civilize the backward countries. On the other hand, Pitts appears to struggle how to treat Bentham’s such description, for instance, of Islamic countries as a region of incurable barbarity and ignorance. I would like to argue that there was no such contradiction as suggested by Pitts in Bentham’s theory. I will firstly (in section 2) (...) discuss Bentham’s 'Place and Time,' and show that, unlike Pitt’s interpretation, Bentham tried to change the religions, traditions and customs of non-Western countries, which are at odds with his principle of utility. However, this was based on Bentham’s conception of universal human nature. In section 3, I will examine Bentham’s enterprise of universal jurisprudence to elucidate Bentham’s conception of the universal human nature. I will then discuss that Bentham consistently tried to disseminate this conception... (shrink)

Ratio Juris, Volume 35, Issue 1, Page 55-70, March 2022.