Before addressing these stressful questions I find it necessary to outline, in lamest terms, Mill's ideology on morality and social consciousness. Mill says that a moral character is developed, not innate. We develop our "moral nature" through experience; and so, we experientially come to understand the concepts of "right" and "wrong." Once we have morally evolved to the extent of being able to realize these concepts, we are then responsible for promoting the greatest possible good, which Mill argues to be happiness. Our individual happiness should proceed that of others, so that we do not neglect ourselves and interests. We should however endeavor to promote the happiness of others along with that of our own, and should promote the greatest happines for the greatest number. From this idea proceeds a developed sense of social consciousness. We are charged with the task of making ourselves reasonably aware of what is best for ourselves and for those around us.
This task carries over into the leadership roles that we may hold, which brings me to my point on Congress. If the currently defunct U.S. Congressional body were to adopt the utilitarian "greatest happines principle" would they put their own good before the good of the people that they are charged to represent? Or, would they alot their personal identities as reflections of their respective constituencies as a whole and therefore legislate only in the interest of their constituents, regardless of their choices' impacts on the nation? Is it the case that it is unreasonable to speculate on this issue because such things are already taking place? Or, in a more optimistic light, is the contemporary system of American government already adept and effective at legislating in promotion of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people?
Well, I think the fundamental difference between members of congress from different parties all across the spectrum would be the "experience" that has formed their sense of “right” and “wrong.” Ideological differences between parties are more prevalent now than any time in our lives. When I say “ideological,” I do not simply mean what they believe in, but also why they believe what they do. When one side truly wants to get rid of the Affordable Health Act because they know it will hurt our nation monetarily and some businesses and some jobs (which may be ones most of their constituents hold), while the other side says it will actually help those people and other jobs and the monetary burden will be lessened by the decreased proportion of exacerbated health issues and reliance on Medicaid, then there must be differing definitions of the greatest good and the greatest potential happiness. One says it has the potential to hurt us in the future. The other says no, you are being shortsighted, it will hurt momentarily, but our potential for future happiness is increased. These views are almost entirely on the opposite side of the tracks. Who are we to say one ought to do anything? How can we judge who should give up their cause? The two utilitarian stances that exist in Congress are there because they exist in larger numbers elsewhere. For one of our objections, there is someone else who feels the opposite. Thus, the fight for victory on this issue is a fight for their utilitarian mindset. It is analogous to a head-on, full throttle game of chicken. The one who can detach the steering wheel wins. If they collide, it will hurt them both, but one car will most likely be bigger, have more weight, more power. The objective is to sustain the least amount of damage. The happiness of the party seems to be considered more than the happiness of America. To them, the happiness of the party is the equal to the happiness of their future America. I think we are seeing yet another cross-road in American politics. And in my opinion, there are no universally utilitarian rights. Someone’s theoretical potential happiness will be lessened. Only time can tell the correct theory.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think that the "greatest happiness principle" has been adopted by large numbers of both Americans in general and members of Congress to a greater extent than most realize. While, yes, they do disagree on what exactly the greatest good is (as Aron discussed above), one would hope that they hold onto those beliefs because they believe it will best represent their constituents. However, it is also clear that Congressmen/women are most definitely applying the greatest good principle to their own constituents / campaign donors on numerous occasion - think the famous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, the huge subsidies given to corn farmers, etc. It is also clearly the case that politicians can and will use a utilitarian viewpoint and focus specifically on their own happiness - unwillingness to compromise, the (Republican) shutdown of government, etc. Essentially, my answer might have evolved to be a bit of a cop-out. These questions are incredibly difficult to speculate on because different Congressional members will make decisions about different issues based on different principles at different times.
ReplyDelete