The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

"The greatest good for the greatest number" is a quick summary of the philosophy of utilitarianism. First proposed by Jeremy Bentham and refined by John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism became the ethical philosophy that forms the basis of most government decision making in modern democracies, and what could possibly be wrong with this concept? Sadly, utilitarianism is not without its paradoxes. Let's give you, dear reader, one superpower: the ability to predict greatness. Using your superpower you discover a boy who will discover the cure for cancer, a girl who will invent an endless supply of energy to replace oil, and the farmer who will discover a way to end world hunger. They will improve the lives of billions, a few of whom will than discover things that will benefit even more. The problem is each has a very rare genetic make-up and one needs a heart transplant, another a lung transplant, and the third needs a kidney and a liver. The only other person in the world who is a tissue match is an ordinary young man with no great prospects beyond holding down the typical meaningless job. Although J. S. Mill would recoil at the thought, classical utilitarians could argue that the government had every right to take the life of the ordinary person to save the lives of the extraordinary ones. Too extreme an example? How about the man who loses his life long home so the state can build a bridge that saves 100,000 commuters one minute a day on the way to work? Or the Army Corp of Engineers who flood 131,000 acres and destroy a hundred homes in order to save several large cities from flooding? And, of course, there is always THE train.

Immanuel Kant suggested a moral system based on rules. The main rule was "act as if your every action created a universal law." Mr. K. was well aware of the typical human behavior of expecting others not to be selfish while exempting ourselves from that obligation. Taken at its base his philosophy suggests the golden rule "do onto others, as you would have them do onto you." Kant goes on to suggest as a corollary that no human has the right to "use" another to achieve their ends since no rational person would propose a universal law where they get screwed.

John Stuart Mill was well aware of these paradoxes and tried to incorporate Kant and Bentham into his revised utilitarianism. Create a rule of thumb, he suggested, and then apply the utilitarian calculation of the greatest good. In the case of the transplants the rule might be "no one should benefit from the involuntary death of another." OK, what about the death penalty that, one could argue, benefits society while the murderer certainly doesn't want to die? OK, refined rule "no one should benefit from the involuntary death of an innocent person." With that rule the folks needing the transplant would be left to rely on just how much the ordinary guy wanted a statue to his memory on every village green.

For me, the difference between the train and destroying 100 homes to save cities is just such a simple rule-don't destroy the quality of life of one person to benefit another unless the benefit is absolutely clear. Now the Army Corps levee system actually raised the Mississippi above the surrounding land making this disaster inevitable, but the result of opening the levees was as absolutely predictable as anything can be. Rule in place, apply the utilitarian calculation, destroy a hundred houses, save thousands. With the train no benefit is as absolutely clear as opening the levees, there's no direct A to B connection. All we get are A MAY cause B. Rule applied, no need for the utilitarian calculation, don't build the train.

Thank's for letting me be back in my Philosophy Class again