utilitarianism and imperialism
I‛ve worked past some of my initial uninformed assessments of utilitarianism, but I‛m still stuck on one point: that utilitarianism leads to imperialism. Perhaps I‛m being simple here. If I am, please argue me out of this.
So here‛s my problem with utilitarianism: the premise is to act in such as way that one promotes the greater good for the largest number of people, right? On the surface, this sounds like a pretty good way to live life. But who gets to decide what the greater good is? What are the qualifications? Did it work then the British decided what the greater good was for India? Did it work when the Southern states decided that slavery was in the best interests of everyone concerned? Is it working right now this minute as the Bush adminstration decides what's good for us? For the Middle East? For the rest of the world?
The problem with utilitarianism is that it presumes that somebody, somewhere, knows best and is qualified and equipped to put that decision into motion. "What‛s best" very often turns out to mean "what creates the most strategic economic advantage." And when we talk about economic advantages, aren‛t we always ultimately talking about what‛s good for us as opposed to what‛s good for all of us?
Comments
From Varoufakis: "A standard problem with utilitarianism [...] is that it leads to political hot water. For example, provided utility is measurable then at least theoretically it is possible to answer the question: if I take X away from Jill in give it to Jack, how much utility will Jill lose and how much utility will Jack gain? And if I can show that Jack will gain a lot more utility than Jill will lose, is this not a justification for removing X forcibly from Jill in order to pass it on to Jack? [Oo! Property rights!] Perhaps Bentham would have been happy with this; for it would have justified taxing the terribly rich in favour of the poor. None the less neoclassical economists were not interested in such comparisons of one person's utility with that of another. Therefore they ditched this early view of utility. There are two reasons why.
The first is that, by their own admission, they wanted to construct an apolitical economics. It is easy to see how these comparisons between Jack and Jill's utility from X are politically controversial (imagine for instance that X is not a jar of marmalade but Jill and Jack's child). [...]
For example, consider the case where Jack tortures Jill. If all that matters is the maximum average utility, then if Jack's utility from torturing Jill is greater than the utility she loses as a result of being tortured, then her torture has been justified." (Foundations of Economics 82-83)
Yeah, I think that's your imperialism, right there. I told you Varoufakis was good.
Posted by: Mike | December 15, 2004 9:16 PM
I nearly want to shoot myself for doing this. From Our Mutual Friend:
Old Betty Higden, however tired, however footsore, would start up and be driven away by her awakened horror of falling into the hands of Charity. It is a remarkable Christian improvement, to have made a pursuing Fury of the Good Samaritan; but it was so in this case, and is a type of many, many, many.
. . .
A well-meaning bystander... said hoarsley ... that she 'oughtn't to be let go.'
. . .
Strengthening herself by the utmost exercise of her resolution, the poor trembling creature shook him off, almost fiercely, and took to flight...
Posted by: michelle | December 15, 2004 11:53 PM