I am waging a quiet campaign against Utilitarianism. Not that it’s noticed.
Utilitarianism was a philosophy introduced by a strange man called Jeremy Bentham who loved measuring things and thought you could calculate happiness. He reckoned that you could make your moral decisions based on how many people would be made happy by the result. If 19 people were made happy by course of action A, and 18 by course of action B, then you should choose Action A.
You only have to look at Brexit and Trump to see the flaw in this argument.
The takeover by stealth of Utilitarian thinking means that we are now a people that thinks the idea of society having winners and losers is inevitable. We measure everything from the number of steps we take to the length of our sleep and how many seven-year-olds can spell the word ‘turnip’ but are talking less about the things that cannot be measured.
I don’t want to engage in moral arithmetic like Jeremy Bentham
Like love. Part of this is very personal. My son has Down syndrome. The disability club is one nobody wants to join, but once you’re here, you realise all the best people in the world are in it with you. I’m surrounded by lots of folk with disabilities. They’re excellent, irrespective of whether they can get the grades, or a job. So I don’t want to follow Utilitarian thinking and end up coldly concluding that disabled people are not useful enough, too costly or surplus to requirements. I don’t want to engage in moral arithmetic like Jeremy Bentham.
Oscar Wilde writes about a character who ‘knows the price of everything and the value of nothing’, which feels like a summary of Utilitarian philosophy. No wonder Charles Dickens satirised Bentham’s thought system in the novel Hard Times.