ON UTILITARIANISM

[Archangel__7]

Statements I made earlier certainly don’t reflect the intent of the Utilitarianist’s approach, but rather demonstrates the full logical outworking of this ethic on its own terms.
Included in your response was a friendly reminder that it entails "maximum good for maximum numbers". We can see the initial intent, and I agree it's a noble one, however its greatest weakness lies in its ambiguity. On its own, Utilitarian ethics lack a foundational basis in determining just what amounts to a permissable loss for the greater good. I'll go ahead and respond to your questions, but note you must answer them too from within the framework of your own worldview. In other words, apart from God, can you tell me what is good, and can you account for it (how do you know it to be good)?

Eariler we introduced Fernando Savater on the dilemma of defining goodness. Utilitarianism, as promising as it initially appears, can be applied in horrific ways, each very justifiable under its premises. Dr. Corey Washington, professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland offers valuable insight into this...

Imagine you're back in the South, and it's 1955. A small African-American boy, fourteen years old, whistles at a white woman. This causes quite a stir, and soon there's a mob. People want blood. Unless you lynch this child, there's going to be a riot, and many people will lose their lives. Would you lynch him for the greater good?

There are a variety of reasons for thinking that unrestricted utilitiarianism is unacceptable as a moral policy. Here I am refering to the true story of the Emmit Till. Many people find this kind of consequence unacceptable and, for this reason reject unrestricted utilitarianism. But the question I must ask is "On what grounds?" On what grounds do we make these moral assertions? From what philosophical framework do we arrive at these results as unnacceptable? Apart from God, there really is none. We need a transcendent universal standard not alterable by popular disagreement. Without this, man is forced to become the measure of all things.

And in case we commit the mistake of thinking this as a rare exception, history would demonstrate otherwise!
Hitler in his own estimation of his meteoric rise to power genuinely believed he was doing mankind a favor by exterminating what he thought were inferior races under the banner of Fascism. He truly thought he would bring a millenial reign of the Third Reich through an impregnation of political ideology in the neighboring countries of Europe, and arguably the rest of the world. The cost was justified when man became the measure of all things. But to the Utilitarianist, I must ask on what basis can this be condemned when the very framework of his own philosophy renders his condemnation impotent of objective meaning?

Karl Marx and Engels never forsaw the devastation their socialist ideas would bring to the masses, but the imprisonment of political dissenters and the oppression of the rebelious were thought to be necessary evils in their attempt to build some economically utopian society from which the citizens of the world could benefit for ages to come. Millions were obliterated in what started as an ambitious effort to bring about maximum good for maximum numbers (In the long run). But once again, we repeat to the utilitarian, how long is the "long run"? If it means the remote future or end of the world, then it is too out of reach to be of any help in making decisions today. But if it means the near future, then that would justify obviously evil things which work well for a short time (corrupt governments, cruelty, and deception).

A preliminary analysis from the Judeo-Christian perspective however sees utilitarianism as a sincerely noble effort. But what went wrong? Its doom to failure begins the moment man became the measure of all things. Relativism is the inevitable outcome of a Godless theory... If there is no ultimate, infinite, absolute being, you will be left with a finite, limited, relative being, and you and I will have to play God. And no matter how altruistic, how magnanimous the motives may be to begin with, apart from the grounding foundation of an objective moral law, the resulting consequence will be either a society rife with debauched sensuality, or a proliferation of power-mongering. As Malcolm Muggeridge said it, "If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place... and it is either going to be out of a drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hephner."

...Either the dominating autocratic ruler in a totalitarian regime, or the drive for pleasure where all parameters are removed and we are left with a narcissistic society degenerate of moral restraint. In short, there is only one angle from which one can stand, but an infinite number of angles from which we can fall.

[Added Question Below]

Corvus, I fully understand that we have a life beyond this message board, and that anyone else is welcome to offer a response as they desire. However, this writing has been outlined on the basis of our discussion hitherto. The question I want to ask then is does anyone have any disagreements on this issue they wish to bring forward?

[Corvus]

Imagine you're back in the South, and it's 1955. A small African-American boy, fourteen years old, whistles at a white woman. This causes quite a stir, and soon there's a mob. People want blood. Unless you lynch this child, there's going to be a riot, and many people will lose their lives. Would you lynch him for the greater good?

Yes, the exact words “greatest good for the largest amount of people” is something that becomes disagreeable if taken to an extreme. It could also be used to justify slavery on the grounds that most people would be better off with the slight worsening of the living conditions of a few. For this reason, the philosopher John Rawls suggests that when drawing up an ethic for a society, the right action in any dilemma is the choice in which the worst off person is least badly off.

The cost was justified when man became the measure of all things.

I disagree. The cost was justified because the measure of all things became the German man. Or, the cost became justified because Men was placed above the value of a man, or individuals. All value systems, Christian or otherwise, place lives, of the group or of individuals as being the chief currency of ethics.

I don't believe the utilitarian philosophy implies or states that the maximum good is for people "in the long run". This results in all sorts of foolish schemes of questionable intent.

Its doom to failure begins the moment man became the measure of all things. Relativism is the inevitable outcome of a Godless theory... If there is no ultimate, infinite, absolute being, you will be left with a finite, limited, relative being, and you and I will have to play God. And no matter how altruistic, how magnanimous the motives may be to begin with, apart from the grounding foundation of an objective moral law, the resulting consequence will be either a society rife with debauched sensuality, or a proliferation of power-mongering. As Malcolm Muggeridge said it, "If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place... and it is either going to be out of a drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hephner."

I disagree. If there is no ultimate, infinite, absolute being, an ultimate, infinite, absolute standard must be drawn up where the basic standard is the individual. An egoistic philosophy applied to everyone. The law is the best example of this, and though the law has faults, so does living up to a standard that is almost indefinable. You use the Being as a standard in and of itself. What is so disastrous about separating the standard from the Being?