One of my favorite political philosophers was a man named John Stewart Mill. He developed a political philosophy known as Utilitarianism. The fundamental principle that makes up the core of this philosophy is the following: That the purpose of a truly just society is to maximize the happiness and contentment of the greatest number of people possible.
This principle is what forms the foundation of my own political and social philosophy, and there are a couple of implications I have drawn from this principle that I would love to discuss with any of those interested.
First: That the Utilitarian vision cannot be achieved through existing conservative ideology or unregulated capitalism, as the ideology and the economic system are fundamentally based on individualism and self-interest. A certain degree of collective happiness (for some) is only a by-product of a system that prioritizes the individual, and the accumulation of wealth as a measure of success, which is equated to happiness.
Second: the principle of the maximization of happiness for the greatest number of people is what differentiates it on a fundamental level from traditional communism. Communism is an absolutist philosophy that calls for the happiness and contentment of all peoples, and the eventual removal of government and statehood to be replaced by a large number of self governing communes. Utilitarianism appears more reasonable to me in this regard because it implies a recognition that achieving a state of total utopia for all is unrealistic.
So please provide commentary or a rebuttal to my position, or try to answer this question.
What do you think a society built on the Utilitarian principle would look like?
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
As for refutations, I am a bit lost on making any really good ones, because I don't see the persuasiveness in Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is not a necessary conclusion or a fact, it is a normative argument, so I don't find its nature to be ultimately persuasive.
Utilitarianism is not something that handles a wide array of cases successfully. If your paradigm incorporates just one small belief, then you're not going to have a successful civilization for the reasons that happen out of not considering enough political possibilities.
Civilizations need to have a reasoning, capitulating, learning, problem-solving, defensive, team-value based essence to keep them afloat, otherwise they perish due to ineffective action. Monothematic civilizations make themselves susceptible to mass manipulation by creating collective personalities that make it easier for totalitarian bodies to gain control, and commit mass atrocities.
Now, I am not going to pretend I will know what a utilitarian society will look like, because that is basically admitting that the slippery slope fallacy is a means of observing the future, but I can say that it may not be very different from a movie, which should tell a person that it will not work inside the real world engine.
DZhukovin
Level 7
May 14, 2018
0
"He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion." Long time fan, as well
Buttercup
Level 8
May 14, 2018
1
As a layman, I don't understand this philosophy. How can you maximize happiness in a group of people, when happiness means different things to different individuals within it? Also, is it the sum total of happiness at a given moment or is it cumulative over long periods of time? Specifically, a course of action might maximize happiness in the short term, but be highly distressing in the long term. One particular example is climate change.
Spongebob
Level 7
May 14, 2018
0
That's an excellent question! And i suppose it would depend entirely on what actually entails the sacrifice. If this hypothetical Utilitarian society had such a divide that the sacrifice was costly, and left me with no happiness at all, then no I probably wouldn't. However I would like to think that a truly utilitarian society would have collective support structures and the ability to provide the basic neccessities. Were my sacrifice to be jobless with continued access to food, shelter, transportation, entertainment and safety then i probably would make that sacrifice. The goal is to try and achieve peak contentment for everyone and leave no one behind. I suppose Utilitarianism includes an acknowledgement that it is unlikely to achieve a perfect utopian life for all.
John_Ir
Level 2
May 14, 2018
0
Well I liked Mill too when i discovered him in my freshman philosophy course. The problems with the "greatest good for the greatest number" are greed and discrimination. The "greatest number" won't all be happy with their level of good, and what about the rest of the people, who aren't included in the "greatest number? "The greatest good for the greatest number" is akin to "majority rules." The problem becomes for instance, when the majority decides that minority immigrants aren't allowed to be in the greatest number, or that it's ok to discriminate against the people who aren't in the greatest number, pick any minority. To me a society where the collective wealth of the community would be distributed evenly to the members would be a utilitarian society and each member works providing some good to the community. Problems arise when people are too ill or old to work or too lazy. A social security system could protect the elderly of course. A small society could pull it off--I don't think it's feasible for a larger society. Just my two cents.
lerlo
Level 8
May 14, 2018
1
That's a pretty big problem that I don't think Mill himself ever really adressed. If altruism was a common enough trait, than the ideal society would consider the majority of all human beings. I also completely agree that a nation state would be far too large and complex to be successfully Utilitarian. I just wistfully dream of societies better than the deeply flawed ones we have now.
This was my first thought as well. Who decides who the "greatest number" are or what they look like. While pleasant in the ideal, it's easy to see the basic concept go off the rails. I'd argue that we saw just that with Jim Crow. The greatest number (white majority) saw the greatest outcomes
(socioeconomic prosperity) at the expense of a minority (everyone else). One could posit that MAGA = a return to pre-civil rights American "utilitarianism" and wouldn't be terribly far off the mark in my opinion.
Mill is the source of one of my favorite quotes although I realize that conservative was a political party in his context.
I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it. --- John Stuart Mill
My biggest concern with Utilitarianism (and understand this is a statement from a lot of ignorance) is that I'm unaware of any human society that is both aware and altruistic enough to make it work. I'm afraid that our species won't be mature enough to operate at that level (maybe for all our allotted time?)
RichCC
Level 8
May 14, 2018
1
I prefer to work for the happiness and contentment for all ( leave no-one behind). But here is a question for you in return. Are you prepared to be one of those left behind in order to fufil the Utilitarian dream?
SimonCyrene
Level 7
May 14, 2018
0
So if utilitarianism accepts that some may be less happy, how does it morally justify this?
Ellatynemouth
Level 8
May 14, 2018
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.