Utilitarian Political Perfection

I feel like I am someone who is a member of a minority group among academics and scholars for my dissent on utilitarianism. It seems that most people follow at least a minimal level of utilitarianism in life, striving to maintain more good for more people in most circumstance and it seems to logically follow, at least at first glace. To merely accept that it is good advice to follow the majority belief is fallacious reasoning because sometimes the majority of people get it wrong. I do however, take from a strong majority belief caution in pursing my own attempt to find truth in a matter that has caused so many minds to polarize on one side of an issue. My argument, like so many debates in philosophy, is driven by a hypothetical scenario.

A perfect government: Government from a utilitarian perspective means that so long as the government is benefiting more people than it is harming then it is not merely preferable to institute utilitarian policies, rather it is the aim and such is necessary for the maintenance of the greater good. This form of government may follow whatever means necessary to reach those ends (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people) regardless of the pain, misery, destruction, harm, etc. it does to others, no matter how egregious, ruthless, despicable, abominable, disgusting, etc. The hypothetical that comes to mind when I think of a perfect government under a utilitarian framework goes as follows. The masses elect their officials who represent them in both the house and the senate and those officials create laws and act as the collective oversight of all government actions. The president in this hypothetical is also elected by the members of congress, just like the U.S. government does today only there is no popular election by the masses. The president, the one who has to make all the tough choices and must retain the power of making split second decisions, is chosen solely by our elected representatives and is obligated to serve. They may use whatever criteria they desire for determining who the best potential candidate will be but after one is decided upon that person is made commander in chief regardless of their willingness to accept the position or not.

The person will have to be someone that has an immense stake in life, that is, they must have a lot to lose. Having family and friends that someone is extremely attached to emotionally is regarded as a positive to any official evaluating potential candidates. Any other items the person has in life that they are strongly attached to is also a plus because they can be exploited. Having the right "mindset" is also possible criteria. The mindset includes behavioral patterns that suggest the candidate has good reasoning abilities, functions normally, and any other psychological qualities that make the candidate best fit for the position. After the person has been selected they shall be taken away from all that they cherish in life. The government will then instruct the new commander in chief that everyone that he loves is expendable to their cause because they are the assurance the government has on the decision making power of the person. The president is now given access to all pertinent resources that is necessary to making decisions but is restricted in his abilities so far as he may seek "selfish" ends. Those selfish ends include attempting to save the persons he loves from any amount of harm that could befall them.

To establish the credibility in their threats the government threaten to cause or actually cause massive amounts of harm to those people or things that the president most deeply cares for such that the stress of seeing one's most cherished things in life being harmed will cause the president to function in a manner that is most conducive to making the best decisions. In this manner the president is not held back by pride or other decision impairing issues. They may also wish to threaten massive amounts of harm to the president himself. Nothing is off the table so long as it means the president will maintain the best effort he/she has in making decisions that benefit the country and the majority of its citizens. The ends in this scenario justify the means so even a constitution and laws can be thrown out the window if the security of the majority is at stake.

This scenario is very unlikely to ever happen so it's possibility is irrelevant. The hypothetical is meant to highlight the absurdity inherent in utilitarian ideals by isolating the important concepts so they can be analyzed in depth. If utilitarianism is accepted then it follows that all the actions taken by the government in this scenario are justified so long as they benefit the majority. This is the problem I have with utilitarian ethics. There is a difference between causing harm to another and failing to make them better off. We always have the option of helping others on our own accord. It is more than an equation of numbers and I think the utilitarians fail to see this.

For another extremely interesting ethical dilemma that does well to hash out utilitarian tendencies click the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem