The few, the many, and those ill-equipped to choose

I am a Lost addict. One scene in a recent episode featured a rather substantial number of people on an aircraft that may have been about to crash. A character asked the person seated next to him what would happen to all those people. The other, in one of his priceless signature lines, answered, "Who cares?" This cold indifference to the possible deaths of a few dozen people struck me as simply evil. Then I thought about it for a while. No one could do anything to protect them. Even if they died, the cause for which they died is probably (nothing is certain on this show) more important than a few lives. Surely allowing the dozen to die to save millions is acceptable? Ah, utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher of the early and mid 19th century, proposed that an action is moral when it attains the highest good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is, at first glance, a viable moral framework for at least the shaping of policy. Unfortunately, it is also flawed. The Second Law of Humanity (see January 27) and the Third Law both render utilitarianism ineffective and even dangerous.

1) People cannot always identify "the highest good for the greatest number."

People always, always base decisions on incomplete information outside the realm of mathematics. Consider, for example, a chess game. You are white, so you open. What to do? Queenside pawn? Kingside? A knight? Just run away because you are playing Matthew Sadler? The cold, unpleasant truth is that you have no idea of what the best move is. You might have a general idea or a "gist" of what a sound move would be, but you cannot plan the entire game and cannot foresee every outcome. The science of making decisions without complete information is called "heuristics." It is, almost by definition, the least precise science in existence with the possible exceptions of sociology and psychology. Let us say that Ebola breaks out from an escaped monkey in San Diego (lots of zoos there) and threatens to wipe out 80% of the U.S. population, but we can stop the spread of the plague by detonating a thermonuclear device over San Diego and killing everyone who is infected. Not exactly original, I know, but still interesting. On the one hand, we can save 270 million people by killing a few hundred thousand. But will we really? Can we be sure that the nuclear device will kill everyone? Has anyone already left San Diego? Will the outbreak just die out due to the inhospitably cold climate (relative to Congo)? We just don't know. Utilitarianism promises the end of moral compromise via precise measuring of cost and benefit, but all it offers is a set of mind-boggling probabilities and possibilities. Man knows not his needs.

2) People are incapable of detecting error once a choice has been made without an external reference point. People are also very, very selfish.

Consider, for example, an incident that occurred a few days ago. A man was pulled over by the police and later questioned by the Secret Service because he had an "Abort Obama, not the unborn" bumper sticker. (Here's a brain teaser: if abortion is not murder then how is this a death threat?) This poor guy was placed under investigation for expressing an opinion is way that was tactless but hardly disruptive or grossly inappropriate. Now we come to the crux of the matter: the government will continue to treat folks this way until given a reason not to. Unless someone loses a Senate seat over this, conduct will stay the same because the choice has been made and from the perspective of the people in power there is no reason to change it. Because the government has a different perspective than the people it theoretically serves the significance of external stimuli is not consistent between the two. SWAT teams accidentally breaking down the wrong door is a problem for the people in the house; it is not a problem for the government beyond some wasted time. What Congress perceives to be the greater good is almost certainly going to be incorrect from our standpoint and will remain incorrect until angry letters and petitions start showing up. Utilitarianism cannot be counted upon in government because "highest good for the greatest number" is a relative term from the beginning and is still further damaged by inertia and selfishness.

3) Utilitarianism cannot even be enacted.

I love game theory; it is one of the few elements of philosophy that functions with mathematical precision. Consider the following: two fighter pilots are over enemy territory. A formation of enemy fighters approaches. If both fighters stay, both pilots will be injured and both craft damaged but they survive and reach home. This outcome has a value of 2 for both pilots. (total of 4) If one turns and runs, he will escape but his wingman will die trying to hold off the fighters. This outcome has a value of 3 for the pilot who escapes but a value of 0 for the pilot who dies. (total of 3) If they both flee they outrun the enemy fighters but burn so much fuel doing so that they have to bail out over enemy territory and are captured. This outcome has a value of 1 for both pilots. (total of 2) Now imagine that you are one of the pilots. Should you stay or go? If he stays you are best off fleeing because otherwise you'll be wounded. If he flees you had better follow because otherwise you will die. No matter what your wingman does you are best off retreating. And yet, paradoxically, the best overall outcome is if you both stay and fight. The utilitarian outcome is only possible if both fighters stay. The actions that the pilots actually take will be based in self-interest and render an optimal outcome impossible. The optimal outcome occurs only when courage is added to the mix. This is rather ironic, given that utilitarianism is intended to replace all other value systems and cannot explain or support courage. Utilitarianism tells us to value the highest good for the greatest number but provides to clear means or even reason to try. People, left to their own devices, are not utilitarian. People subject to the will of a Benthamite totalitarian are not free and will likely attempt to become so.

Utilitarianism has a certain appeal, I admit, but recall what is paved with good intentions and utilitarianism is little more than a set of good intentions.