To what extent can utilitarian principles be applicable to contempory government?

BA Politics: Introduction to Politics (essay2)

Student number:022243766

‘The fundamental idea of utilitarianism is that the morally correct action in any situation is that which brings about the highest possible total sum of utility. Utility is variously understood as happiness, pleasure’. This quote is taken from Jonathan Wolff’s book. The philosophy of utilitarian principle influenced many of the social reforms in Great Britain during the early half of the nineteenth century. I will be focusing on Bentham and Mill whose philosophical principles extended into the realm of government.

There are many issues that I would be interested in discussing regarding this question for example the war on Iraq and also the number of terrorist suspects that are being detained and under utilitarian principle which allows innocent people to suffer. Instead I will be discussing the many basic utilitarian principles of government that was formulated by both the greatest political utilitarian philosophers. I will be providing evidence and seeing to what extent are utilitarian principles applicable to contempory government by contempory government I will be mostly writing about liberal democratic system of government focusing largely on the UK.

Bentham introduced what he called the principle of utility. This is summarised in terms that ‘every action should be judged right or wrong according to how far it tends to promote or damage the happiness of the community’. Bentham believed that human behaviour was motivated by the desire to obtain some pleasure and to avoid some pain. In introduction to the principles he states that it is ‘ the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong’.

Insisting that individuals are the best judges of their own happiness, Bentham had an automatic tendency to default to non- interference by government. However he recognised that individual actions of one individual often implicated the happiness of others and that individuals may not have the incentives or ability to co-ordinate actions that improve aggregate utility. As such Bentham laid some responsibilities in the hand of the state. The first obligation is not to let people suffer needlessly. This means guaranteeing a minimal subsistence of income to ensure the survival for all citizens and the provision of security of individuals (as well as their property) against the violence of other citizens or foreign nations. We can see this by the provisions provided by the welfare system and also through laws.

In the Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation Bentham was optimistic about the ability of the human mind to change the world. He was a social reformer who developed the idea of a panopticon, a model prison. Bentham preferred representative government, because it kept the rulers accountable to the people. He wrote a vast constitutional and legal code. The GHP can be used to attack arbitrary government.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Bentham believed in Representative government he believed that it should be a ‘body with interests not significantly different from those of the community’. In current western democracy there seems to be failure of representative government. If one looks at the House of Commons there are very few women MPs and ethnic minority MPs even though fifty one percent of the population is made up from females. The utilitarian principle does not apply to current government, as it does not ensure the voices of women and ethnic minorities are heard in government. We need proportional representation to make the Commons a more representative chamber. More women and ethnic minorities need to be in the House so that their utility is counted. Also the boys’ public schools atmosphere puts women off and the late sittings are a disincentive to anyone with a family.

J.S Mill view of democracy is an extension of the theory of representative democracy already proposed by James Mill and Jeremy Bentham. He says representative democracy being without its flaws; indeed he actually attacked the current system of government (in his essay On Representative Government) saying, "democracy ... commonly conceived and hitherto practised is the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the people exclusively represented" (a system he refers to as "false democracy"). What Mill wants therefore is true representative democracy, where all people can be heard and minority opinions are not suppressed by the majority; "In a really equal democracy everyone or any section would be represented not disproportionately but proportionately unless they are, there is not equal government but a government of inequality, contrary to the principle of democracy which professes equality as it's very root and foundation."

John Locke who believed that Legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions of government should be placed in independent hands. In theory this meant that the other two would check the activities of any branch of government, and this would safe guard the people against the corruption of its rulers. Mill accepts that power should be dispersed throughout the agencies of the state, to affect a system of Checks and Balances. ‘So that the over-ambitious have little chance to exploit their power’. Bantam developed ideas for utilitarian democracy. In such a democracy the happiness sought by the legislator as individuals had to be made to coincide with the peoples happiness, The only way to achieve this was to ensure that the legislators were made such by an electoral system based on punishment by dismissal in office. As stated by James Mills ‘Essay on government’ ‘the community itself must check those individuals, else they will follow their interest, and produce bad government’. (Pg 73)

In the current state of government it is said that the executive Tony Blair can do whatever he wants. I am a big Labour Fan and agree with a large percentage of their policies but Tony Blair is too powerful. One man should not be able to run this country independently. His cabinet meetings, which last 30 minutes and are now fortnightly instead of weekly. They do not actively discuss policies; especially with the current situation I believe it is all the more important to have a joint discussion about the role of the UK. Tony Blair tells them what he and the party are going to do. Which he has already decided everything he is going to do in a private meeting of chums (Bush). I think the Labour Party are doing a good job but Tony Blair getting so much power worries me. He has a majority of 167 people and passes any law he wants. Luckily, the House of Lords saved us from the Anti-Terrorism Bill. As Lord Halsham once commented if we don’t have checks and balances on government this could lead to ‘Elective dictatorship’, which I personally believe, it is heading to.

Mill placed further measures to prevent abuse of the democratic process. He proposed there should be a limitation on the money people may spend on their elections campaigns. How can we trust anyone prepared to pay large sum of money to gain election? Surely they will seek a return o their investment?’ Jonathan Wolff pg 107 for example in current government there are strong case that have been put forward which shows government taking advantages of these secret ‘sinister affair’. For example the Eccleston affair where Formula one chief Mr Ecclestone donated £1m to the Labour Party, although this is not made public at the time, May 1st Labour wins a landslide victory in the general election, promising to end government sleaze after a series of scandals under the Conservatives. May 19 Health Secretary Frank Dobson announces the government will ban all sports sponsorship by tobacco companies. During the summer, Labour fund-raisers begin secret talks with Mr Ecclestone about a possible second donation, but later break off the discussions. October 16 1997 Mr Blair has a meeting with Mr Ecclestone, but the discussions remained private. November 5th the government announces proposals to exempt Formula One from a tobacco sponsorship ban after threats the sport would leave Britain. This is a clear example which indicates that government being involved in ‘sinister affairs’ therefore a strong need on checks and balances on government.

‘Mill argued that the franchise could be restricted to men over the age of forty, since fathers would not act against the interests of their sons and daughters, nor husbands against those of their wives, there was he claimed, no representational benefit to be gained from the cost of involving these extra groups’. Bentham disagreed with this statement and so do I. Bentham believed that Mill had no good utilitarian ground in excluding them. He believed alongside myself discouraging them would stop them from ‘developing the moral and intellectual qualities required by political participation’. Mill may have argued this on the bases of historical content, times have changed and women are now part of the labour market they participate in a number of top jobs then why should they not vote? It goes against the utilitarian principle. Especially in this current state there is easy access to political information via the media and young people if they do not participate in government from a young age they will further deter them away and therefore increase in voter apathy, which would not lead to a true legitimate government who have been voted by the majority. This could in fact lead to tyrannical rule. Like Bentham argued ‘if women could successfully occupy the executive there was no case for excluding them from the electorate’ (pg333). What is not in doubt is that Mill, (as opposed to his father) was a life-long supporter of "...equality in all legal, political, social and domestic relations" and in fact tried to get the Reform Bill of 1867 amended to include the franchise of women.

This is still applicable today, as although the legal situation has changed since the 19th Century, women still find themselves socially and economically unequal. As I said earlier, legally women are now equal, yet socially and economically they are still working off an unequal playing field of competition, they have the legal backing to compete, but are now prejudiced against in the competition.

This current crusade of war is in the name that we they are defending any rising terrorist groups. It is plausible that the increase in happiness or decrees in misery of the general population will outweigh the suffering of the innocent. I do not personally agree with this, as I believe especially in current climate there are people from all over the world who are demonstrating against this war on terror, these demonstrations are not only in the UK but in America as well. For example on the Americans citizens took to the street last weekend protesting against the war on terror. How can this war be justified, as many innocent people will suffer at the expense of a minority of people being happy or unhappy in this case? Utilitarian believe that it is morally correct to punish the innocent. To conclude with I have outlined a number of cases in which utilitarian principles are still applicable with contempory western government although through time it has evolved to fit into present day circumstances. Due to utilitarian principles being closely linked with liberalism there is a great inter locking of utilitarian principles associated with liberalism.