The Utility of Immorality
“Utilitarianism” is a fancy name for “Mob Rule.” Jeremy Bentham is regarded as the father of modern Utilitarianism. [See “Benthamite.”] Bentham defined as the fundamental axiom of his philosophy: “It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.”
Human beings are infamously, if not inherently, short-sighted. Therefore, our species is no more likely to adopt delayed gratification en masse than it is to undergo a collective moral epiphany. That being true, “utilitarianism” turns upon: “What is deemed beneficial to ‘us’ (i.e. a collection of ME’s) at this moment in time?”
To hell with the long-term consequences … No concern about the effect upon anyone else … Just “damn the torpedoes … full speed ahead” … Immediate gratification reigns supreme.
However, without a definitive target to attack, a single collective tends to feed on itself. A unified collective cannot exist indefinitely. The interests, objectives, and priorities of the constituent parties diverge, and a single collective inevitably disintegrates into smaller tribes, which are defined by common characteristics, experiences, or interests.
The tribes, in an effort to achieve relative “happiness,” engage in incessant competition culminating in (actual or metaphorical) warfare with other “lesser” tribes. The resulting hostilities are defined by cycles of revenge, retaliation, and retribution.
Productivity is lost due to the need to protect that, which one has, from recurring attacks, and wealth is limited to that, which one might be willing to lose in such attacks. Rather than the whole being expanded through cooperative action and rather than wealth being accumulated through the recognition of private property rights, the utilitarian whole is made lesser for its conflicting and (self-)destructive efforts. The collective is defined not by the sharing of excesses but by the struggle for subsistence.
There is a fundamental problem at the point that one’s “happiness” requires involuntary detriment, loss, or sacrifice from another. While utilitarianism is premised upon “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” individual sins are no less damnable when undertaken through collective action, and one cannot enjoy the absolution, which might be offered by a host of co-conspirators.
Morality is an individual trait. No institution or collective has a moral compass independent of its constituent members, and the absence of moral behavior cannot be explained or excused through the self-serving benefits to the collective. The effect is to elevate selfishness to a moral imperative. The collective enjoys a perverse moral certitude, which it mistakenly believes can be derived solely from its number.
Where the resource giving rise to one’s “happiness” is necessarily taken from another by force, such a taking cannot reasonably or legitimately serve as the foundation for any moral code or philosophy. This remains true no matter how “popular” the philosophy may be or how many persons reap the short-term “benefits” therefrom. The resulting “happiness” is a façade. It is a false sense of bliss fueled by ignorance.
