11.3 The Greater Good 2

The egoist ethic is a "consequentialist" ethic. It is not based on duties, but on consequences. We choose a course of actions based not on right or wrong but on what the effects of that action are. In the case of individual ethical egoism, the question has to do with the consequences of an action on you as an individual--what action will bring me the greatest pleasure or the least pain.

Another, more important consequentialist ethic is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism makes choices based on what will bring either the greatest pleasure for the greatest number or the greatest good for the greatest number. It thus has more to do with collective decisions than with individual ones. In theory, a nation like the United States makes most of its decisions based on what it believes will bring about the greatest benefit to its people.

[textbox: utilitarianism]

The founder of modern utilitarianism was a man named Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Some ancient philosophers were utilitarian as well, such as the Greek Epicurus (341-270BC) and the Roman Lucretius (ca. 99-55BC). But it was Bentham who set down the system that has had a major influence on the modern world.

When Bentham was born in England, British law was a complicated mixture of traditions that were more a matter of what had been done in the past rather than a well thought out system based on some clear principle. As you might expect, these laws favored the aristocracy and made little provision for the middle class, let alone the type of poor person who worked in the coal mines. Bentham's goal was to set up a way of calculating courses of action on the basis of what would bring the greatest possible happiness to the greatest number of people, a rule he called the Greatest Happiness Principle.

[textbox: "Nature puts everyone under the rule of two masters who rule us: pain and pleasure. It is their job alone to show us what we should do... They rule us in everything we do, in everything we say, and in everything we think. We can try to break free of our slavery to them, but any attempt will simply confirm and show that we are their slaves."

An Introduction Principles of Morals and Legislation 1, my "translation" :-) ]

Bentham thus defined happiness as pleasure and unhappiness as pain. He tried to make a mathematical equation out of it, a "calculus" of right and wrong. If we could add up the amount of "units of pleasure" one course of action might bring and weigh that amount against the pleasure of another course, then we would immediately know which choice to make.

But Bentham was not so much concerned with individual choices, as the egoist is. Bentham was interested in the interests of a community as a whole.

[textbox: "Moral philosophers often talk about the 'interest of the community,' but it is one of the vaguest expressions they use. No wonder its meaning is often lost! If it has a meaning, it is this. The community is a hypothetical 'body' whose 'body parts' are the individuals in it. What then is the interest of the community? It is the total of the interests of the different individuals who compose it.

Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation 1 ]

A government should thus pass laws and in general govern by taking into account the course of action that will most increase the happiness of its people.

The great thing about Bentham's approach is that everyone's happiness counted the same for him. The happiness of a king counted the same as the happiness of a child working in a mine. Indeed, Bentham was way ahead of his time in advocating not only the abolition of slavery, but full rights for women and indeed, even animal rights.

However, as simple as Bentham's system might seem to be at first glance, philosophers have raised a number of questions about how it might actually play out in practice. For example, what if most of the people in a certain community found continuous displeasure by the presence of a very small group, maybe a group of a different race or religion from the majority. Neither group were happy at the other's existence. What if we could demonstrate mathematically that murder of the smaller group, perhaps genocide, would increase the total happiness for the indefinite future? What would stop a purely utilitarian approach from justifying their elimination?

Obviously Bentham did not intend his "hedonic calculus" to lead in such directions. Bentham's godson, John Stuart Mill (1806-73), modified Bentham's utilitarianism in some ways that helped address some of the questions Bentham's approach raised. For example, a principle of non-maleficence was more important for him than the greatest happiness. This was the principle to do no harm to others. One thus could not commit genocide in the name of the greater happiness.

[textbox: principle of greatest happiness, principle of non-maleficence]

Mill modified Bentham's utilitarianism in other ways as well, although he more agreed than disagreed. A very important difference was Mill's sense that not all pleasures counted the same. He captured his point in a famous saying,

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Utilitarianism 6

In Bentham's approach, it would actually be better to be a happy pig than Socrates getting ready to drink the hemlock. All pleasures counted the same for him. So if a pig had more "hedons," more units of pleasure, its life would be preferred to an unhappy human one.

Mill disagreed. For example, he believed that intellectual pleasures counted more than merely physical pleasures. The amount of pleasure you might get from a night at a bar did not count as much for him as the pleasure of someone who spent that same evening at an opera. Both Bentham and Mill strongly believed in the importance of everyone in a society becoming educated as part of their empowerment.

Indeed, Bentham believed that ignorance and superstition were two of the greatest obstacles to societal happiness. They believed that education should be widely available to far more than simply the upper class, although they did not believe it should be mandated. Bentham also believed that superstition, particularly over religious matters, was a serious hindrance to societal happiness. As an example of this belief, he bequeathed his entire estate to the University of London on the condition that his stuffed body be present at all the board meetings. One can still see his body on display there today at certain times during the year.

We should mention one further aspect of Bentham's thought before moving on. Bentham did not believe that punishment of criminals increased happiness. He thus disagreed with the idea that justice is about "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," the "law of retribution" found in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 19:21) and in even older law codes like the Law of Hammurabi. Rather, he believed that criminals should be reformed and rehabilitated. He proposed a model prison, the "Panopticon," which was approved by the British Parliament in 1791, but never built.

[textbox: "All punishment is mischief. All punishment in itself is evil."

Morals and Legislation 13.1]

When we look back at the basic ethical philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, we find a good deal not only that is helpful but that has become part of the DNA of many societies. We are often shocked to find out that the rulers of some nations think it is perfectly appropriate for them to rule in their own best interest rather than in the interest of those whom they govern. But these are all fairly recent developments in history, and many parts of the world have yet to share in what may seem to us common sense.

Some of Bentham's ideas, like the equal rights of women, seem obvious to us today, but they were anything but obvious in his day. John Stuart Mill published a book in 1869 called On the Subjection of Women. In it, he argued that public attitudes toward women both kept them from maximal happiness and from fully using their talents. The book was radical for its day, although today most would again consider it simply common sense. It reminds us of how much we have to be thankful for today.

Although not all Christian traditions agree, this book stands in that Christian stream that believes that God truly loves the entire world and indeed wants everyone to enjoy eternal life. The well known verse, John 3:16, indicates that God wishes the best of the whole world and was willing to let his Son die to make that happen. 1 Timothy 2:4 similarly expresses that God wants all people to experience mercy rather than justice. While both mercy and justice are features of God's character in the Bible, the New Testament portrays mercy as the dominant element (cf. James 2:13).

What we are saying is that God seems to look favorably on the happiness of the world. While the Bible does not at all promise prosperity or benefit to those who follow Him, the idea that we should live in this world with an eye to the greater good fits very well with Christian faith. Indeed, it seems a direct reflection of loving our neighbor as ourselves. If we follow Mill and supplement utilitarianism with a basic sense of right and wrong, of basic human duties, a consequential ethic will likely play a major role in a Christian ethic.