Utilitarianism Rides Again

Honorable Intentions Used To Justify Many Evils

The utilitarian theory of ethics and morality has become so deeply embedded in the public mind that few are even aware of it any more.  It's just obvious, self-evident.  Who could or would dispute it?

Utilitarianism is the belief that human actions ought to be judged by their consequences.  In particular, they are to be judged by whether they produce a greater good for a greater number.  (Utilitarianism historically put the ethic in a more absolute frame, as in "the greatest good for the greatest number".  But the procedurally impossible calculus devolves down to a more indefinite, simple "good outcome" test.)  This moral compass is as barmy as one could imagine, but what can you do when all moral absolutes are dismissed as having no foundation whatsoever (except of course the absolute ethic of utilitarianism).

Utilitarianism has reared it ugly head recently in a prosaic case in New Zealand.  A crusading "journalist" wanted to show how easy it was to purchase a firearm illegally in this country.  She deliberately and willfully broke the law, providing false information, and duly ended up owning a .22 rifle.  Then she broke the story.  What a slam bam whizzo of a story it was.

Her actions were immediately justified by recourse to utilitarian theories.  Look at the public good she did.  She exposed an evil.  She demonstrated that the law was an ass.  The greater good she did establishes the morality of her subterfuge and the rectitude of her lawbreaking.  Is it not just another version of an undercover sting operation conducted by lawful authorities? And so forth.

Not so fast.  Let's imagine said public provocateur wanted to do a bit more crusading journalism.  Now that we all accept the morality of an action is to be judged by the general public good it produces, let's double down.  How about proving how easy it is to pick up defenseless, unsuspecting children?  Adult pederasty is a very serious crime, and easy to commit.  A news reporter commences cruising in his car around a local primary school and within twenty minutes he has picked up a child and off they go, straight to the TV studio to display his particular version of "the greater good".

Yes, he has committed a crime, but no worries.  Look at the public good he has done by exposing how easy it is to entice unsuspecting children into vehicles.

Then, flushed with victory and notoriety--all good for increasing readership and viewers--said intrepid crusader wants to produce some more public good by demonstrating  just how easy it is to rob ubiquitous corner convenience stores.  He duly dons a balaclava and coat and walks into three local stores pulls out a machete, terrorizes the respective store owners and walks out with all the cash in the registers, plus boxes and boxes of ciggies.  Then he goes on TV, explaining what he has done and how easy it has been.  What a wonderful public good he has done.  As a result his actions must be judged as exemplary and a knighthood awaits.

If utilitarian ethics can be used to justify the actions of a reporter breaking the law to "prove" how lax our gun laws are, only inconsistency, hypocrisy, or just plain dumbness could rule the actions of our crusading pederast and thief inappropriate or wrong or unjustified in their particular crusades.

After all, their intentions were honorable, they were seeking to do good--and, indeed, they were successful, were they not?  Utilitarian ethics can be used to justify all kinds of harm and wrongdoing.  And so it has come to pass in the case of the caped crusader illegally purchasing a rifle.