Is Utilitarianism helpful as a guiding political principle?

Yes

1 of 2

by Stephen Dreyfus

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

"It's not just the principle: it's the money!"

This is how I felt when I got two tickets a couple of weeks ago that totaled $125. I committed the "crime" of driving my daughter to her ice skating lesson, a half-mile from my house. I was driving through my neighborhood at a top speed of 20 MPH, and came to a four-way stop sign. Seeing the intersection was clear, I slowed to a crawl and made the ninety-degree right turn. The next thing I knew there were flashing blue lights behind me. I was "guilty" of not wearing my seatbelt, and of not coming to a full complete stop. The officer was almost embarrassed to give me the tickets, but explained that someone in the neighborhood called them to complain that drivers were making illegal rolling stops. "We have to give tickets, if someone calls us here for that reason."

Oh, really. Yet, regardless of the fact I did nothing to endanger either myself or anyone else, I was fined $125 for driving through my neighborhood. (Just for the record, my daughter was wearing her seatbelt, and I wear mine at least 99% of the time.)

What really dismayed me was how other people reacted when I told them the tale. They fell into one or two ideological camps. The libertarian camp heartily agreed that the government had no business protecting me from myself; the decision to wear a seatbelt should be mine, and mine alone. The law and order camp declared that the law is the law; I had no right to judge for myself which laws should be obeyed and which should be disregarded. What no one seemed to do, was to examine the utilitarian consequences of enforcing this law: The officer was wasting valuable time as a public servant focusing on a minor trivial transgression; while I was royally ripped off for saving a little bit of gas by making a rolling stop. (If everyone did that, we'd all use less oil.)

If you ask anyone about this, or any other issue, inevitably you will get a response that indicates one's principles. This is a shame; for in questions of government and politics, what is often ignored is the utilitarian or practical outcome of a law, regardless of principle. We embrace our principles like sacred treasures, while simultaneously condemning the principles of others that run contrary to our creed. Holding fast to principles, regardless of the logical consequences, is commonplace. As soon as we let go of our principles, and instead consider the utilitarian or practical advantages of doing or not doing something, we end up somewhere on the unsettling slippery slope between two opposing ideological views.

What isn't commonplace is common sense; i.e., practical utilitarian outcomes. This becomes fairly obvious, providing one doesn't endorse the principle. For example, in China there is one political party, the Communist Party. Yet the Chinese have always historically been practical. Just a couple of decades ago, the Communist government was faced with a dilemma. Chinese peasants were producing more food cultivating their own private gardens than they were working together, for the good of all, on the collective farms. Should this practice of private gardens be banned, as it violated the precepts of Communism? Fortunately, without abandoning their idealistic principles of Communism, the government yielded to practical considerations and allowed the private gardens.

Now, it's easy to see the shortcomings of Communist principles when one holds fast to Capitalist ideology. However, several years ago our Congress was faced with a parallel conflict. Lee Iacocca, President of Chrysler Corporation, wanted a loan from the federal government to keep Chrysler from going bankrupt. This violated every principle of free-enterprise and capitalism, and many, on principle, shunned the idea. Fortunately, the pragmatists prevailed. Chrysler was saved, and thousands who would have been out of work kept their jobs.

Now, I feel I am as idealistic as anyone. Just the same, I recognize how principles that ignore practical considerations can be a deadly trap. For instance, I used to wonder why so many people were able to completely disregard the vast majority of reputable scientists and insist that global warming, or if you prefer, global harming, was a myth. When political pundits like Rush Limbaugh profess that global warming is a colossal hoax are they merely victims of denial? Or perhaps their principles prevent them from recognizing the facts. There are two conflicting principles of government intervention: (1) government intervention makes things worse; or (2) government intervention makes things better. Naturally, conservatives tend to follow the first ideological viewpoint, and they are often right. (When the government intervened while I was driving through my neighborhood, I certainly agreed with this principle!)

However, if indeed, global warming (a.k.a., global warning, or global harming) is a real and present danger, then from a utilitarian viewpoint the only way it can be dealt with is for government to intervene. Why should anyone restrict their own profits for the benefit of the environment if no one else will? Government intervention can level the playing field so one's personal self-interest doesn't conflict with the welfare of everyone else. What Rush and others have done, is an illogical end-run: since they abhor the idea of massive government intervention, as a violation of conservative principles, they ipso facto conclude that global warming doesn't even exist!

This, of course, is putting the cart before the horse. Yet, as easy as it is to pick on others who hold principles different than our own, we shouldn't forget it is also far too easy to do the same ourselves: ignoring the utilitarian advantages or disadvantages of an issue, in order to hold fast to lofty principles.

Learn more about this author, Stephen Dreyfus.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.