Democracy and utilitarian ethics face the same two problems

The argument of this blog is that democracy is failing us in exactly the same way that utilitarian fails us, and that the consequences of this failure will be felt keenly by anyone under twenty reading this. So if you agree with me, now is the time to act.

Utilitarianism, remember, is a deceptively simple quasi-scientific view, based on measuring and observing, that we can increase human welfare by increasing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people (two maximising principles here, one of number and one of a thing called happiness). Leaving aside the problem of defining happiness, this has at least two major problems.

How far into the future do I take the calculation? Five minutes? Six months? One year? Fifty years? (to read more click below)

I am supposed to adopt what Peter Singer calls the universal viewpoint – a neutral point of view which places your interests on precisely the same level as mine. But I can’t and won’t. Which is why Peter Singer gives away a large proportion of his income to the poor every year and I don’t.

So what are the implications of these two problems? First of all, most human beings operate on a short term basis. My happiness in the next five minutes is more important to me than my happiness in five years time. Let’s call this the proximity problem. If I have a pain in my foot, this will assume much greater significance to me than the pain of arthritis I will be feeling in ten years time. It’s for this very reason that many of us have difficulty postponing consumption (cue the obesity problem) – I tend to value a reward today as of higher value than the same reward next week.

Secondly, very few of us are capable of the universal viewpoint, and very few of us actually think it’s a good idea. Let’s call this the partiality problem. I prefer my own dear children over you lot out there who I’ve never met, I place my neighbour’s children second, my students third and so on in a sliding scale of value. I am more partial to blood relatives than that batty old scientist drowning in the river, even though I should, so the utilitarian argument goes, leap in and save the drowning scientist first (assuming he is brighter and of more long term use to society than my son, who I call a loafer, because he prefers drinking alcohol to studying hard at University, a tendency of course which I deplore but seem unable to change).

Exactly the same two problems are now afflicting British democracy. First of all, politicians operate for the short term. They are worried about re-election. They listen to the annoying people who shout and protest loudest. They want to avoid negative headlines. They vote down the excellent new shopping centre proposed for Wells city a few years ago because of a big save our green belt protest. The pain of the protest was experienced now – the benefit of the shopping centre for jobs and lower pollution as people no longer drove to Bath, was devalued.

So this explains the following recent headlines: “NHS in crisis over standards of care” (we just can’t afford to improve standards and at the same time pay the escalating costs of care for the elderly, but no choice will ever be made which will rectify this paradox). “UK faces energy crisis” (Independent February 20th 2013) because following the Japanese nuclear meltdown after the Tsunami of 2011 it became politically unacceptable to back new nuclear power stations. But you need an awful lot of windfarms to replace one nuclear power station. In two or three years’ time the UK will run out of energy and become beholden to the French. Who may charge us quite a lot for it (if they have any spare left from their nuclear power stations).

Secondly politicians are partial. They don’t count anyone except their own electors. If anyone suggests a power station in Somerset (actually they are building one, rather slowly at Hinckley Point) you can guarantee local politicians will oppose it. They will use arguments about green belt, nuclear waste etc – and so effectively let the French voters take the risk (not a very moral view put like that). They behave exactly like I do with my family: they operate a circle of interest – first, my voters (like my children), second, my party (like my neighbour) and somewhere down the list, a vague idea of the national interest (like the interest of future generations).

As for world interest (which parallels the universal viewpoint), it never really gets a look in. Democracy fails, for the same reason that Utilitarianism fails, because the problems of proximity and partiality are built in to the democratic process. It is your generation (assuming you are under 20) who will begin to pay the price of democracy’s failure. Can democracy survive it’s own shortcomings? Yes, but only if rational argument wins over emotive short-termism.

Image: The lottery winner © Peter Baron