In this paper, I sketch out and assess two readings of Bentham's theory of meaning, one reductive (Section 2), the other quasi-pragmatist (Section 3)—both implicating Bentham's ontological and epistemological views. I focus on the way these readings would understand Bentham's analyses of claims in moral and political discourse that rely on putatively normative notions such as obligations and rights, good and bad, and what ought to be the case. I conclude the paper by suggesting tentatively that the independent merits of both readings could signal an irreconcilable tension at the heart of Bentham's thought (Section 4).