Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Against those who argue that the utilitarian theory unreasonably demands of
individual agents that they devote their primary energies to the cold-hearted
and interminable calculation of anticipated effects of their actions, Mill offered
a significant qualification. Precisely because we do not have the time to
calculate accurately in every instance, he supposed, we properly allow our
actions to be guided by moral rules most of the time. Partly anticipating the
later distinction between act and rule utilitarianism, Mill pointed out that
secondary moral principles at the very least perform an important service by
providing ample guidance for every-day moral life. Finally, however, he
emphasized that the value of each particular action—especially in difficult or
controversial cases—is to be determined by reference to the principle of utility
itself.
Finally, Mill argued that social applications of the principle of utility are
fully consistent with traditional concern for the promotion of justice. Justice
involves respect for the property, rights, and deserts of individual citizens,
along with fundamental presumptions in favor of good faith and impartiality.
All of these worthwhile components of justice are adequately preserved by
conscientious application of the principle of utility, Mill supposed, since
particular cases of each clearly result in the greatest happiness of all affected
parties. (Utilitarianism 5) Although a retributive sentiment in favor of
punishing wrong-doers may also be supposed to contribute to the traditional
concept of justice, Mill insisted that the appropriately limited use of external
sanctions on utilitarian grounds better accords with a legitimate respect for the
general welfare. Mill also pointed out that the defence of individual human
freedom is especially vital to living justly, but that had been the subject of
another book.
Utilitarianism
In this section an overview of what utilitarianism actually is will be
presented, and which theories go against it. There will be a short
presentation of the main utilitarian values.
The utilitarian philosophers, who are mentioned most often, are Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill. These two, however, represent two
totally different aspects of this ideology. Bentham is the one who stands
for the ideology described in the paragraph above. Utility, well-being
and pleasure are the main sources for action in every human, in his
opinion. This philosophy was very dominant at the time ‘Hard Times’
was written.
Mill was also very influenced by utilitarianism, but at the same time he
had a very critical relationship to this theory. Instead he turned more to
the classical liberalism and has been considered one of the pioneers of
social-liberalism, which turns its back on the laissez-faire politics. His
central points or values are personal freedom, self-respect, integrity,
and social well-being. It could be claimed that his philosophy was a little
bit closer to what Dickens believed in, but this shall be elaborated on
later in the paper.
"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but
Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out
nothing else." These are harsh words, spoken to a classroom full of
young children. These are also the first sentences in the novel, so the
reader is put into the utilitarian way of thinking as soon as he/she opens
the book.
When reading the novel, the reader quickly gets acquainted with this
ideology that was so dominating during the period it was written. But it is
through the characters themselves that the reader receives most of the
impressions, or experiences most emotions, and not least, forms his/her
own ideas and opinions about the subject. Of course the characters are
the most important ingredients in any novel, but in this one the
characters seem to represent a whole lot more than just being
characters in a story for the people to read. Perhaps it is because
Dickens himself felt so strongly about the subject that his own ideology
shines through so clearly in this novel especially, so he, himself, steps
into the story and influences the characters directly (this will be further
discussed in section 4 and in the conclusion).
Mr. Thomas Gradgrind and Mr. Josiah Bounderby are the most
outstanding representatives of utilitarianism in the novel and very good
followers of this system they are indeed. Facts alone are the principles
to live ones life by in their opinions, facts alone will lead you forward in
society. And these facts of life must be taught to the children from their
birth, so to speak. One very good example of this is Louisa, Mr.
Gradgrind’s favorite daughter. She is the character who seems to be the
living proof of the success of this factual system (or at least, so Mr.
Gradgrind thought).
The one scene which stands out most clearly to the reader as a
representation of this system’s firm ideology is the scene when Mr.
Gradgrind introduces his daughter to the marriage proposal from Mr.
Bounderby. This scene exposes this ideology right to the skin as far as
compassion and love goes. For example, the following part of their
dialogue appears very harsh (Louisa has just asked her father if Mr.
Bounderby asks her to love him, and Mr. Gradgrind says that that
expression is perhaps a little misplaced):
"What would you advise me to use in its stead, father?
…"I would advise you (since you ask me) to consider this question, as you have been
accustomed to consider every other question, simply as one of tangible Fact."
And then he gives her a long impersonal speech consisting of a number
of facts about different marriage statistics, and Louisa tries again:
"What do you recommend, father,…that I should substitute for the term I used
just now? For the misplaced expression?"
Thus, love is not the major issue in a marriage. Only the facts are
important in every situation. The decision of sharing one’s life with
someone for the rest of ones life should be no different than any other
decision to be taken in the course of one’s life. The facts of the matter
are what is of importance, and the facts were that she had received a
marriage proposal from Mr. Bounderby. So, was she to accept it or
decline it? As a perfect example of the system she was brought up by,
she accepts the marriage proposal, even though she was not the least
in love with her future husband.
When Louisa confronts him with her open-hearted call for help and
critique of his role as a father, and overall critique of everything she had
ever known to be the truth, her words to him astonish him:
"If I had been stone blind; if I had groped my way by my sense of touch, and had
been free, while I knew the shapes and surfaces of things, to exercise my fancy
somewhat, in regard to them; I should have been a million times wiser, happier,
more loving, more contented, more innocent and human in all good respects,
than I am with the eyes I have."
"I never knew you were unhappy", was his reply to his daughter. And he
really didn’t know it, or at least he did not want to know it. The last
sentence in that chapter of the novel is: "And he laid her down there,
and saw the pride of his heart and the triumph of his system, lying, an
insensible heap, at his feet." Everything that he had ever believed to be
true and right, lied there at his feet now, shattered. His life’s work had
crumbled together in a matter of minutes. And after this scene it seems
as if he wants to make it up to her, her lost childhood, his fatherly love
and protection, as he takes her in his house, protects her honor from
Mr. Bounderby. So only a few words of reason, of love, were enough to
break down a whole system of ideas.
Sissy functions as a sort of mediator between the two worlds - the world
of facts (or utilitarian liberalism) and the world of "plain" liberalism,
where feelings are the main concern, or serve as the basis of ones
actions (this will be elaborated on in the discussion about Dickens’ view
on utilitarianism). So suddenly Sissy has been given a huge
responsibility in the novel, even though there is quite a large section of
the novel where she is not mentioned at all. Sissy is sort of "gone" from
the story from the time that Louisa accepts the marriage proposal and
until she brakes down at her father’s home. But still she serves as one
of the most important characters in the novel, as the reminder and
messenger of the good and plain.
The characters in the novel, therefore, play a large role in showing the
wrongs of the system. But where is Dickens himself in all of this? This is
an interesting discussion, which will be presented in the following
section.
Dickens was very much against the system of individualism and egoism.
And not least, he was against the lack of imagination that this ideology
stood for. Imagination is a natural part of the growth of each individual
and without it the personality is left ‘naked’; one becomes merely a
product of the society one lives in, without any personal distinctiveness.
So Dickens sets off to serve as the mediator between the harsh world of
facts and the world of equality and fraternity, exactly in the same way
that he lets the characters in the novel do it. Sissy, therefore, sort of
serves as the disguised writer in the novel. Dickens’ mission becomes
Sissy’s mission: to serve as a reminder of the important qualities in a
world of seemingly hopeless chaos. She was the one who took care of
Louisa and Rachel, the one who found Steven, the one who helped
young Tom and his father; she was the final link to a world of equality
and fraternity.
Then one can ask oneself - which philosophical ideology did Dickens
believe to be true? This may be difficult to determine. Maybe he just
plainly believed in democracy. Besides Bentham and Mill, there were a
number of other outstanding European philosophers in that period. One
of them was a German named Emanual Kant, a great philosopher of
morals and ethics. He clearly breaks free from the utilitarian points of
view. He does, like the utilitarians, put most emphasis on the individual,
but in a totally different manner. Kant believed that the individual’s self-
worth is essential; everyone is on equal terms and the juridical and
political institutions are to secure freedom and equality for all.
The reason why Kant has been included here is that in my opinion
Dickens’ views are somewhat alike Kant’s. Dickens was, of course, also
influenced by the thinkers in his own country, but still there is a lot of
Kant’s ideology present in his criticism of the system. Dickens floats
somewhere between John S. Mill’s and Kant’s ideology, if one is to put
him in any box of categorization at all.
5 Conclusion
Working with this subject of utilitarianism and ‘Hard Times’ has led to
many interesting questions, both concerning the novel itself and
concerning Charles Dickens as a person. Which roles do the characters
of the novel really play, in a broader perspective? Are the different
characters representatives of different systems of thinking? What is
Dickens’ direct mission with this novel?
These are all questions that, in my opinion, have been more or less
discussed and answered throughout the paper. As mentioned in the
introduction, one interesting thing about this novel is how well Dickens
manages to make a fool out of the system, and gets away with it
perfectly well. The ideology so strongly held together by Mr. Gradgrind
and Mr. Bounderby is broken down, piece by piece. These two men are
presented as authorities in the beginning, men to look up to. Sissy Jupe
steps in as the "stupid" little girl who knows nothing of reality, but turns
out in the end to be the only one who can work out the mess that the
other characters have got themselves into. Mr. Gradgrind, the prominent
politician, turns out to need help from the little girl that he set out to
"help" in the beginning.
Steven Blackpool, the poor, hardworking man, the man who nobody
took seriously, except Rachel, turns out to be the most honest and
warmhearted man in the novel, and of course he was innocent of the
crime he was accused of. He dies by the hands of those who betrayed
and questioned him; the innocence is thereby killed by the system.
Louisa, who was portrayed as the perfect daughter and perfect result of
the utilitarian beliefs, turns out to curse this ideology altogether. From
the discussion in section 3.1 about the end of the story and what it
meant in regard to Louisa, she, in my opinion, represents the system
gone wrong. Dickens gets his most successful criticism of utilitarianism
through her. We hear of a longing and sad young woman, unable to
realize any of her potentials. She represents what Dickens believes to
be wrong about the system – the lack of imagination, real childhood,
compassion, understanding, etc. Sissy and Steven are there as the
opposite poles, the world that Louisa wants to join, but cannot, because
she has been "spoiled", her personality has not been given free hands
to grow. And being in between is almost as bad as being part of the
former ideology, she never becomes whole, never gets back what has
been lost.