Paradoxes of the Utilitarian position

The historian David Newsome explains the legacy, and the paradoxes, of the Utilitarian position – still reflected today in the tension between social engineering and freedom of choice. He illustrates how Utilitarianism is an empirical  philosophy, based on reseacrh, facts and their application to real world situations.

1. Contribution to the British love of Royal Commissions

The paradox amounts to this: in theory, Bentham would have wished to see individuals left to their own devices, in practice, they could not be; and given the circumstances of the times, which cried out for sweeping reforms of the whole political and social system, they must not be. Utilitarianism, therefore, became a programme of legislative reform in direct opposition to the principle of laissez-faire.The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 is a classic example of the paradox, aimed at eradicating the ill-advised interference in the balance of nature through the artificial means of dolling out poor relief, which was seen as wasting public money as well as encouraging idleness and over-population. The only way it could be curtailed, however, was by legislation; and the procedure devised to ensure the legislation was effective was a perfect exhibition of applied Benthamism, too. Edwin Chadwick, the architect of the new Poor Law, followed the Benthamite model to the letter. First, one must establish the facts (by a special commission); secondly, legislate on the basis of the facts, collated in an official report; and finally, create a machinery to enforce the law by appointing an inspectorate. This was a new experience for all parties, but it was a procedure which has since become a blueprint for modern legislation.

2. The tension between liberty and control, free choice and imposition.

When Lord Everingham, in Disraeli’s Conigsby, defined the “Spirit of the Age” as the “Spirit of Utility”, he was pooh-poohiong the medieval play-acting of the young aristocrats who thought the peasantry would be entertained and rendered happy by dancing round the maypole. ‘Utility’ meant getting rid of all that was useless. When, however, one tries to find any single attribute common to the Utilitarians, almost every definition invites a contradiction. They advocated laissez-faire as sound economic policy; but they were compulsive interventionists when it came to rectifying the social problems of their day. They were admirably humanitarian in their intention, and yet were the architects in 1834 of one of the most inhuman pieces of legislation in the statute book (1). They had a noble concept of the nature of liberty, while seeming to pose an intrusive and authoritarian threat to their countrymen’s love of individualism. It might seem safe to say that at the least all genuine Benthamites were indifferent to the claims of the Christian religion. But what does one make of James Bowring? Scrupulously faithful to his revered master, Bentham, and then becoming a sort of general factotum within his circle after Bentham’s death in 1832, he spent most of his leisure moments writing hymns.

David Newsome, The Victorian World Picture, (John Murray, 1997), pages 56, 57 and 62

(1) The 1834 Poor Law Reform Act. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was the classic example of the fundamental Whig-Benthamite reforming legislation of the period. Preceded by the massive and well-publicised report of a Royal Commission it received general parliamentary support and passed into law with comparatively little discussion. The machinery of the new law in itself constituted a virtual administrative revolution: a central commission not under direct ministerial or parliamentary control, with wide powers to commit the poor to workhouses, including the separation of married couples.