What is Utilitarianism, Really?

In the last post, we saw a little bit of Bentham’s version of utilitarianism.  His version of this social philosophy was not the only one. 

John Stuart Mill was a contemporary of Dickens and an expert on utilitarianism.  In fact, he coined the term.  (Before Mill, utilitarianism was called Benthamism.)   Mill’s famous text, simply called “Utilitarianism,” outlined his ethical theories.  His goal with this text was to justify the utilitarian principle as the foundation of morals.  What we’ve seen of utilitarianism in Dickens, this sounds like it could be problematic.  How moral is a system that puts usefulness above happiness and ruins people’s lives?

Even John Stuart Mill would condemn such a system.   The Benthamists had gotten off track.  Dickens was portraying what utilitarianism could become at its worst.  Utilitarianism, according to Mill, was not about usefulness, Spartan furnishings, rote memorization of facts, or placing cold-hearted practicality above all else.  For Mill, within his system of utilitarianism, actions were right if they promoted human happiness.  The more happiness promoted, the more moral the action.  This was not about human rights or ethical sentiments, but rather the consequences of actions (Schefczyk). 

Mill equated happiness with pleasure.  Pleasure was the one and only desirable thing.  Mill was also convinced that not all pleasures were equal, some were better or more valuable than others.

This could be a problematic system.  After all, what makes one person happy might make another person miserable.  How could such a subjective moral system possibly work?

Well, things which seem to cause pleasure at first, but which actually cause harm or will be regretted later are not things that a person should seek.  (Partying too hard is probably not a good idea.  Darn.)

Furthermore, the pleasures that are more valuable are the ones that exercise the “higher faculties,” the intellect, the imagination, and moral sentiments (Mill, vol. 10, page 211).  These are higher because they use more developed thought processes, like judgement and empathy. 

Mill once famously said that “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” (Mill, vol. 10, page 212). This sounds like a funny thing to say if pleasure is the highest goal of life.  But the problem is that pigs do not possess the “higher faculties” that are so important to achieving the higher pleasures.  Furthermore, using the “higher faculties” can often make one more fully aware of the problems that are present in our world. 

Mill believed that almost everyone preferred living in a way that used these “higher faculties” to a way that did not (Mill vol. 10, page 211).  Since most people would agree, this was evidence that using these “higher faculties” was of a higher value.  Therefore, the best way to live would be to make use of the intellect, imagination, and moral sentiments, and to frequently exercise judgement and empathy.   These crucial utilitarianist skills were stifled rather than taught in Gradgrind’s school.   By Mill’s definition, Sissy Jupe, with her book of fairy stories and her empathetic response to the teacher’s heartless math questions about the proportions of starving children and drowning travelers, may be the most utilitarianist character in Dickens’ book. 

Works Cited

Mill, John Stuart. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Gen. Ed. John M. Robson. 33 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963-91.

Schefczyk, Michael. “John Stuart Mill: Ethics.”  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.D.  Accessed 6 April 2017. http://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/

Utilitarianism in Dickens' "Hard Times"

Dickens’ Hard Times may largely be read as a criticism of the utilitarianism system.  In Dickens’ illustration of utilitarianism, facts are more important than people and the human element has been removed from all aspects of life.  Children in school are addressed by numbers rather than names and workers in factories are called “hands,” implying that nothing else is necessary.  Utilitarianism means functionality.  There is no room for beauty or sentiment. 

How did the world end up like this?

Utilitarianism was invented by Jeremy Bentham, and was possibly the most important philosophical system of the nineteenth century.  Utilitarianism was responsible for many changes in criminal law, judicial organization, and social reform (Smith 133).  Utilitarianism, at first, was intended to improve social conditions. 

The main point of Bentham’s utilitarianism was to reduce decision-making to a form of mathematics.  The profits, advantages, benefits, conveniences, and happiness gained from an action would be weighed against the disadvantage, inconvenience, loss, or unhappiness that may also result (Everett). 

The ultimate test question in determining the value of a decision became “What is the use of it?” 

At some point, happiness fell out of the equation.  Utilitarianism became practicality, usefulness, and profit above all else.  Anything not aimed at profit, practicality, or usefulness, such as children’s fairy stories, decorated wallpaper, imagination or love, were to be stamped out.  These are not useful.  Get rid of them. 

But, Dickens book asks, what does that do to people? 

Louisa Gradgrind needed a father’s love.  She needed to be able to confide in her father, and to ask him for advice.  But Thomas Gradgrind’s eminent practicality had built an impassible wall between him and the rest of humanity.  

Love, imagination, sentiment, and all the rest of “those subtle essences of humanity” cannot be measured even by the most sophisticated of mathematics.   Not ever.  Not until the last trumpet sounds and blows algebra to pieces (Dickens 74). 

But Louisa can’t wait that long!

Gradgrind had done a good job in imparting his eminently practical ways to his children.  Louisa turned her back on sentiment.  What was the use of it?  She married a man she did not love.  It was, after all, the practical thing to do.  What could go wrong?

Works Cited

Dickens, Charles. Hard Times. New York: Dover, 2001. Print.

Everett, Glenn.  “Utilitarianism.” The Victorian Web. 11 Oct. 2002. Accessed 11 Apr. 2017. Web. http://victorianweb.org/philosophy/phil1.html

Smith, Grahame. Charles Dickens: A Literary Life. New York: Palgrave, 1996.  Print. 

The Golden Fiddle

The screech of a violin fills the air, effectively silencing the discordant background noise.  A reddish glow spreads across the horizon.  The approaching flickering light casts twisting shadows as the musician sways maniacally from side to side in time with the music of his own creation.  He takes no notice of the increasing temperature and plays on with greater passion.  The world will soon be rebuilt in his image.  Rome is burning.  We are all Nero.

The contemplation of this disturbing image is the main objective of poem XXXV in Emily Johnston’s Her Animals.  Perhaps this is an important objective of the entire book.  Johnston’s Her Animals, perhaps a poetry collection, perhaps an essay on the impending destruction of mankind, offers a very bleak picture of our future.  Even darker is the portrayal of human society, and our exploitive relationship with the earth. 

Nero’s “golden fiddle” is ever present in our lives, appearing on all our screens, and taking a position of leadership at the podium (Johnston XXXV).  The sound is our contented distraction.  “It drowns out the wailing; it drowns out the cries; it drowns out the drilling and clear-cutting…” Johnston writes (XXXV).  Our contented distraction comes at a price.  Our lifestyle is supported by the destruction of the earth, the using up of limited resources. 

This is not all.  Our contented distraction “drowns out the heartbeats silenced: the chirrups, the hums, the rustles, the snuffles, the squeaks” (XXXV).  How many species are on the endangered list?  How many will go extinct this year?  All to support a few more years of our contented distraction.

Is our downfall inevitable?  What can we really do? Recycle, conserve water and power, drive less, hug a tree…  All small steps.  Of course, we must start somewhere.  Give up our car, move to a cabin in the woods, go off the grid… Bigger steps, but not always practical or possible for the modern person.  Does it really make a difference?  Perhaps if everyone made even a few small changes.  But they are too busy being contentedly distracted.  What can we really do?  How do we wake people up and get them to join in?  Tell our friends, join environmental groups, march on Washington, write a letter to the Times, call people names, shout until we lose our voices…  Rome is already on fire.  Time is running out. 

Works Cited

Johnston, Emily. Her Animals. Seattle: Hummingbird Press, 2015. Print.