Final answer:
According to Bentham, it is true that legislators should assess whether the net benefits of a policy will produce more happiness than the alternative. This principle is part of the utilitarian philosophy which promotes actions that provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number through cost-benefit analysis.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question asks whether, according to Bentham, legislators should consider if the benefits of a policy, minus the costs, would create more happiness than the alternatives, which is a true statement. This question is rooted in the philosophy of utilitarianism, a principle largely associated with Jeremy Bentham and later expanded by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism suggests that the moral correctness of an action or policy should be judged by its effectiveness in achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In a practical sense, this often translates into a cost-benefit analysis used by governments and policymakers to evaluate the potential outcomes of their policies. Applying this framework, legislators should assess the overall happiness resulting from a policy by calculating the benefits and subtracting the costs, thereby maximizing social utility.
However, it is essential to consider the challenges in measuring happiness and the qualitative aspects of pleasure, as Mill noted with his concept of higher and lower pleasures. Moreover, in the context of rule utilitarianism, rules are created based on the principle of greatest happiness, which are meant to guide individual actions towards the same goal. Nevertheless, determining which actions provide more benefit than harm can be complex and the results are not universally agreed upon.