THE
PUSHPIN PUNDIT
Any Good in the Greatest Number?
(revised July 30, 2006)
“Always… your Government has had but one sign on its desk—‘Seek only the
greater good of the greater number of Americans.’” Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936 (quoted in Dolbeare
and Cummings, American Political Thought,
Fifth ed., p. 415).
“[T]he purpose of government is to do the greatest good for the greatest
number of people.” Christopher Reeve,
2000, as quoted by CBS
News.
If
the utilitarian philosophy survives for a thousand years (as of course it
will), people will still be confused by that unfortunate phrase. The “greatest good for the greatest number”
(or “greatest happiness of the greatest number”) is an inexact statement of the
principle of utility. The greatest
happiness is not always the same as the happiness of the greatest number. When these two goals diverge, utilitarianism
seeks the greatest happiness – not the happiness of the greatest number. This point has been made by generations of
utilitarian writers (including me, at pp. 220-21 of my book Distributive Justice and Disability:
Utilitarianism against Egalitarianism).
Suppose that we could give ice cream cones to 100
well-fed people, each of whom would like an ice cream cone. Alternatively, we could relieve 50 other
people from horrible pain. Would utilitarianism tell us to give ice cream cones
to the 100, in order to promote the happiness of the greatest number? No;
utilitarianism would tell us to relieve the 50 from horrible pain, in order to
promote the greatest happiness.
At
one time, I thought all this was obvious. No one, I thought, could possibly be
confused by the phrase “greatest happiness of the greatest number” into
thinking that utilitarianism seeks not the greatest happiness, but the
happiness of the greatest number. Now I
know better: despite the best efforts of generations of utilitarian writers,
that unfortunate phrase continues to sow confusion.
And yet, and yet… There may be some value in the phrase
“greatest happiness of the greatest number”.
“Greatest number” is not part of a rigorous definition of
utilitarianism, but it can serve as a reminder that everyone’s interest must be
counted.
Permanent link to this post: www.pushpinpundit.com/v1n2041306.htm