Conflicts of interest

Bentham insisted the foundation of his moral view is the impartial rule, each to count for one and no one to count for more than one.

Be it so.

If I do A Fred, a child of 4, will suffer 20 dolors of pain while if I do B Jill, also 4, will suffer only 2.

Surely it is best to do B, then?

And if B leads to both Jill and Paula each suffering 2 dolors?

Well, yes, surely B is better still.

And if it leads to 11 of Fred’s classmates – or 15, or 25 – each suffering, quite separately, 2 dolors, all of them volunteers with their parents’ approval, doing it as a kindness to spare poor little Fred the agony of 20 dolors?

Is it still the better choice?

Surely so?

Surely it’s still a brave and laudable kindness?

What difference does it make how many of Fred’s classmates there are, all of whom take on a mere 2 dolors to spare him, the poor tyke, that  big lump of 20?

After all, not one of them suffers a bit more than those piddling 2 dolors.

Even if there are fifty of them, it is not as though that added up to one kid, somewhere, suffering a whole hundred dolors, is it?

No, certainly not.

Then twelve suffering one dolor against one suffering one dolor is a wash.

It’s not the same as one suffering twelve dolors against one suffering one dolor.

I forget who first urged this, but he also pointed out that majoritarianism is just making a rule of the lesser surrendering to the greater force.

Making a virtue of supposed necessity, so to speak.

Might have been Shaw.

Now, if it were a single kid suffering a hundred dolors that B led to, well, then maybe A would really be better and poor Fred would have to take his 20 dolors.

[Aside.

The disciples said to Jesus, “Better one should die for the sake of twelve.”

“Phooey,” he replied. “Even if twelve died, not one of you would die more than once. Now if one of you were to die twelve times, that would be something!”

/Aside.]

But then again, better for whom?

Not for Fred, certainly.

Nor even in the eyes of his Mom, I would imagine, though she might play along if she couldn't save Fred, somehow, in secret.

In the eyes of God or his equally imaginary secular proxy, the necessarily impartial ideal observer?

So what?

Ah, so you mean it’s morally better.

I see.

Well, we know what that comes to.

The voice of power, bellowing quite deliberate nonsense.

And then there is little Johnny who is so sensitive he always feels things twice as strongly as anyone else.

So to maximize pleasure and minimize pain one must always maximize his pleasure first, and minimize his pain, it being so cheaply and easily done.

Well, his Mom says so, anyway.

Or is she just a liar and he not really the utility hog she claims he is?

How could anyone know?

Reading assignment.

Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation.

J J C Smart in Utilitarianism, For and Against.

As to the maybe Shaw, The Intelligent Woman's Guide? Maybe?