Excalibur
02-08-06, - 05:48 PM
The philosophy of utilitarianism is a popular ethical theory. It has become the ‘ethical backbone’ of our popular conception of what a liberal-democracy is supposed to be. John Stuart Mill, one of the founders of utilitarianism, defines this doctrine as holding “that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.” (Mill 2001, 6) Superficially, this principle seems quite appealing. However, it has also been responsible for a lot of the problems that we are now facing in the world, such as environmental degradation and rapid resource depletion. The pursuit of actions which tend to maximize the happiness of those who pursue them has at the same time created a situation in which a great number of people suffer, especially the economically marginalized. These negative consequences of utilitarianism are depicted in John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath and Harry Glasbeek’s Wealth by Stealth. In both of these works, the doctrine of utilitarianism is shown to be a smoke screen to make the limitless, immortal and super-human greed and destruction of the corporation appear ethical and just.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism states that the ultimate good for humanity is happiness. This principle of happiness as a foundation for the moral actions of society is the final aim of any action that we should perform in this theory. Insofar as a choice leads to a maximum of happiness when compared to its alternatives, this choice can be said to be the right one. Mill writes that “[a]ccording to the Greatest Happiness Principle… the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable… is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality… [t]his, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality. (Mill 2001, 8)
Despite the seemingly rational appeal that this doctrine has, the notion that happiness should be the final arbiter of what is good or bad has proven to be woefully inadequate in creating a truly just society. One of the primary difficulties with a utilitarian calculus is that not all voices can be heard from or considered in order to make the correct utilitarian choice. Indeed, it is in the decision-maker’s best interest to substantially limit the scope of the individuals considered under his or her choice, weighing those whose happiness will be increased more heavily than the suffering that will result for those who will be adversely affected. This principle of utility is one that is consulted by capitalist decision makers to determine their best course of action. Profit maximization is one of the forms that this principle of utility takes. Unfortunately, in such a decision process, those who might be negatively affected by the decision are rarely consulted or considered. Contrary to Mill’s original principle, it is neither practical nor in the best interests of the company to dwell too long on the effects that a corporate decision may have on those who are economically marginalized by the decision. In Wealth by Stealth, Glasbeek writes that “[a]s a political philosophy, liberalism does not demand that governments guarantee citizens substantive equality. This is why quintessentially liberal institutions, such as our Human Rights Codes and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, do not have anything to say about discrimination on the basis of wealth… (Glasbeek 2002, 21)
This mechanism of corporate decision making is portrayed in Steinbeck’s novel as a monster. The protagonists are forced to move off of their land because the topsoil has been eroded and the land has been degraded from farming too much cotton, an eventuality caused by the fact that cotton crops make more money than other kinds of crops that are able to keep the land in tact and feed people at the same time. Steinbeck describes the situation that the tenant farmers find themselves in. In the words of the owner who comes to tear down the Joad’s house, “[i]f a bank or a finance company owned the land… the Bank – or the Company – needs – wants – insists – must have…” (Steinbeck 1966, 26)
The men who come to the farm with the tractors – referred to by Steinbeck as “the owners”—have a utilitarian rationale for displacing the migrant workers: “a bank or a company can’t [hold the land]… because those creatures don’t breathe air, don’t eat side-meat. They breathe profits; they eat the interest on money. If they don’t get it, they die the way you die without air, without side-meat. It is a sad thing, but it is so. It is just so. (Steinbeck 1966, 27)
By using the supposedly rational argument that corporations must survive in order for society itself to survive, greed and destruction in the name of corporate profits is allowed to continue unchallenged. The doctrine of utilitarianism has been used to defend the actions of corporations that participate in the free market on behalf of their ‘shareholders.’ The hidden premise behind such justifications is that our society would be unable to exist in its current state without such a rationale. Glasbeek argues that this rationale has unfairly put power and financial resources into the hands of a few. In his book, he points out the inherent contradictions between the existence of corporations and the tenets of freedom and responsibility that are at the centre of liberal democracies. He writes that the notion of personal responsibility for the effects of decisions is conveniently sidestepped by the corporate structure, comparing the situation to “when children are young [and] they make certain they have companions by inventing friends. They talk and play with them as if they really exist… But the parents will stop the play-acting when their child tries to blame [the invisible friend] for a broken plate… all… captains of Canadian industry [have invisible friends]… Their invisible friends are corporations. (Glasbeek 2002, 6-7)
This limitation of responsibility is written into the very fabric of a corporation’s existence: the notion of ‘limited liability.’ It ensures that any decision that a corporation’s board of directors makes will never have to be accountable for any of the suffering that it might cause as a consequence of that decision. While some version of utilitarianism may be used in justifying the decision to share-holders, no form of justification is needed for those who might be affected adversely by the company’s course of action. Glasbeek writes that this lack of responsibility “is carefully hidden by saying that a corporation has limited liability… [the shareholders are] only responsible to the extent of their actual investment for the obligations incurred by their corporation as it pursued wealth for their benefit. The magic of corporate law has made them less responsible than you and I.” (Glasbeek 2002, 10-11)
This lack of ethical responsibility is also seen in Grapes of Wrath, where the tractor driver talks to Tom Joad about his helplessness in the face of the corporate decisions that have already been made. The driver says: “It’s not me. There’s nothing I can do. I’ll lose my job if I don’t do it. And look – suppose you kill me? They’ll just hang you, but long before you’re hung there’ll be another guy on the tractor, and he’ll bump the house down. You’re not killing the right guy.” (Steinbeck 1966, 32)
Thus, utilitarianism is rationalized by all those who would benefit from a utilitarian decision, and accepted by all those who wouldn’t as simply a consequence of ‘the way things are.’ The questionable nature of putting ‘happiness’ as the primary goal of all decisions is recognized by Geoffrey Scarre in his book Utilitarianism. He writes that “[i]f utilitarianism nevertheless insists on maintaining that happiness is the be all and end all (the dominant end in life), this remains at odds with the familiar fact of moral phenomenology that many of the ends which people pursue are valued for their own sake rather than as constituents of a satisfying complex called ‘happiness’….Ironically enough, were this not so, the possibilities of human happiness would be fewer than they are: for if we did not regard many ends as valuable in themselves, we could hardly reap much satisfaction from promoting them.” (Scarre 1996, 145)
In this quote, Scarre is pointing out that much of our motivation for doing things in life does not have as its motivating goal happiness, the goal propounded by a utilitarian rationalization of the corporate structures that are allowed to exist in liberal democracies. Indeed, many of our motivations in a society are more than just simply happiness. Justice, in particular, is a concept that many hold dear, yet one which is overlooked by any utilitarian perspective.
------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Glasbeek, Larry. Wealth by Stealth. Toronto, ON: Between the Lines, 2002.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, 2nd Edition. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2001.
Scarre, Geoffrey. Utilitarianism. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Bantam, 1966.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism states that the ultimate good for humanity is happiness. This principle of happiness as a foundation for the moral actions of society is the final aim of any action that we should perform in this theory. Insofar as a choice leads to a maximum of happiness when compared to its alternatives, this choice can be said to be the right one. Mill writes that “[a]ccording to the Greatest Happiness Principle… the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable… is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality… [t]his, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality. (Mill 2001, 8)
Despite the seemingly rational appeal that this doctrine has, the notion that happiness should be the final arbiter of what is good or bad has proven to be woefully inadequate in creating a truly just society. One of the primary difficulties with a utilitarian calculus is that not all voices can be heard from or considered in order to make the correct utilitarian choice. Indeed, it is in the decision-maker’s best interest to substantially limit the scope of the individuals considered under his or her choice, weighing those whose happiness will be increased more heavily than the suffering that will result for those who will be adversely affected. This principle of utility is one that is consulted by capitalist decision makers to determine their best course of action. Profit maximization is one of the forms that this principle of utility takes. Unfortunately, in such a decision process, those who might be negatively affected by the decision are rarely consulted or considered. Contrary to Mill’s original principle, it is neither practical nor in the best interests of the company to dwell too long on the effects that a corporate decision may have on those who are economically marginalized by the decision. In Wealth by Stealth, Glasbeek writes that “[a]s a political philosophy, liberalism does not demand that governments guarantee citizens substantive equality. This is why quintessentially liberal institutions, such as our Human Rights Codes and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, do not have anything to say about discrimination on the basis of wealth… (Glasbeek 2002, 21)
This mechanism of corporate decision making is portrayed in Steinbeck’s novel as a monster. The protagonists are forced to move off of their land because the topsoil has been eroded and the land has been degraded from farming too much cotton, an eventuality caused by the fact that cotton crops make more money than other kinds of crops that are able to keep the land in tact and feed people at the same time. Steinbeck describes the situation that the tenant farmers find themselves in. In the words of the owner who comes to tear down the Joad’s house, “[i]f a bank or a finance company owned the land… the Bank – or the Company – needs – wants – insists – must have…” (Steinbeck 1966, 26)
The men who come to the farm with the tractors – referred to by Steinbeck as “the owners”—have a utilitarian rationale for displacing the migrant workers: “a bank or a company can’t [hold the land]… because those creatures don’t breathe air, don’t eat side-meat. They breathe profits; they eat the interest on money. If they don’t get it, they die the way you die without air, without side-meat. It is a sad thing, but it is so. It is just so. (Steinbeck 1966, 27)
By using the supposedly rational argument that corporations must survive in order for society itself to survive, greed and destruction in the name of corporate profits is allowed to continue unchallenged. The doctrine of utilitarianism has been used to defend the actions of corporations that participate in the free market on behalf of their ‘shareholders.’ The hidden premise behind such justifications is that our society would be unable to exist in its current state without such a rationale. Glasbeek argues that this rationale has unfairly put power and financial resources into the hands of a few. In his book, he points out the inherent contradictions between the existence of corporations and the tenets of freedom and responsibility that are at the centre of liberal democracies. He writes that the notion of personal responsibility for the effects of decisions is conveniently sidestepped by the corporate structure, comparing the situation to “when children are young [and] they make certain they have companions by inventing friends. They talk and play with them as if they really exist… But the parents will stop the play-acting when their child tries to blame [the invisible friend] for a broken plate… all… captains of Canadian industry [have invisible friends]… Their invisible friends are corporations. (Glasbeek 2002, 6-7)
This limitation of responsibility is written into the very fabric of a corporation’s existence: the notion of ‘limited liability.’ It ensures that any decision that a corporation’s board of directors makes will never have to be accountable for any of the suffering that it might cause as a consequence of that decision. While some version of utilitarianism may be used in justifying the decision to share-holders, no form of justification is needed for those who might be affected adversely by the company’s course of action. Glasbeek writes that this lack of responsibility “is carefully hidden by saying that a corporation has limited liability… [the shareholders are] only responsible to the extent of their actual investment for the obligations incurred by their corporation as it pursued wealth for their benefit. The magic of corporate law has made them less responsible than you and I.” (Glasbeek 2002, 10-11)
This lack of ethical responsibility is also seen in Grapes of Wrath, where the tractor driver talks to Tom Joad about his helplessness in the face of the corporate decisions that have already been made. The driver says: “It’s not me. There’s nothing I can do. I’ll lose my job if I don’t do it. And look – suppose you kill me? They’ll just hang you, but long before you’re hung there’ll be another guy on the tractor, and he’ll bump the house down. You’re not killing the right guy.” (Steinbeck 1966, 32)
Thus, utilitarianism is rationalized by all those who would benefit from a utilitarian decision, and accepted by all those who wouldn’t as simply a consequence of ‘the way things are.’ The questionable nature of putting ‘happiness’ as the primary goal of all decisions is recognized by Geoffrey Scarre in his book Utilitarianism. He writes that “[i]f utilitarianism nevertheless insists on maintaining that happiness is the be all and end all (the dominant end in life), this remains at odds with the familiar fact of moral phenomenology that many of the ends which people pursue are valued for their own sake rather than as constituents of a satisfying complex called ‘happiness’….Ironically enough, were this not so, the possibilities of human happiness would be fewer than they are: for if we did not regard many ends as valuable in themselves, we could hardly reap much satisfaction from promoting them.” (Scarre 1996, 145)
In this quote, Scarre is pointing out that much of our motivation for doing things in life does not have as its motivating goal happiness, the goal propounded by a utilitarian rationalization of the corporate structures that are allowed to exist in liberal democracies. Indeed, many of our motivations in a society are more than just simply happiness. Justice, in particular, is a concept that many hold dear, yet one which is overlooked by any utilitarian perspective.
------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Glasbeek, Larry. Wealth by Stealth. Toronto, ON: Between the Lines, 2002.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, 2nd Edition. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2001.
Scarre, Geoffrey. Utilitarianism. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Bantam, 1966.