© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
In the previous two articles on Utilitarianism, we tried to understand the concept and its application through a case. Today, let’s take the discussion forward. We know most of the arguments of Bentham were supporting the view that general happiness is summum bonum. He asserted that utilitarianism can only give a criterion in morals and legislation. And the moral order, he claims, is based on the equilibrium of interests. But apart from this, there is another area to look into his principle of ideas. You may find it as an advanced step of his theory but as mature readers of UPSC Essentials of The Indian Express and as future bureaucrats that this country deserves, you must know it too.
Relevance: The topic is a part of UPSC CSE General Studies Paper-IV Ethics syllabus. Concepts are particularly relevant in the theory section. Aspirants will also find the article useful for their Essay paper and situation-based questions in personality tests. Moreover, the article’s essence will help aspirants professionally and in life.
Bentham’s philosophy was not only based on the ‘greatest happiness’ principle but the ‘association principle’ as well. He advocated firstly, for the association of ideas with language and secondly, for the association of one idea with other ideas as well. So, whenever we try to understand utilitarianism through the lens of ‘greatest good for greatest number’ we must also keep in mind that the ‘association principle’ of Bentham’s philosophy was somewhere complementary to the utility factor. For a civil servant, this ‘association principle’ helps in times of decision-making in the public sphere. Before you start wondering how, let’s draw our attention to a core question: What is the relation between ethics and utility?
In all his arguments, Bentham discussed what is good and bad. He expressed that everything bad for mankind is what leads to pain and the good is what we see as providing pleasure or happiness. Easy, is it? No. Who decides and distinguishes between good and bad? Are the countless bombardments of Israel on Gaza Patti ‘good’ or ‘bad’? If Hamas’ attack on common people in Israel is bad then why is the moral order of the world not putting it in that ‘bad’ category? Why is the vulnerability of womanhood and the pathetic condition of women across the world not finding any universal voice of ethics? If the world would have maintained that moral and legal order and ideas would have been associated with ethics then certainly happiness would have been across the faces of all women. This leads up to another question: How good will be promoted and how bad will be discouraged? Here comes the role of ethics or idea of ethics.
Human beings need ethics because it is their inherent nature to get into conflicts. The primary reasons for conflict are ego and the selfish desire to think about only one’s welfare rather than others. Now such a kind of ‘association’ where conflict is at its core will create a more difficult world to live in. Conflicts might make someone or some community happy but will that be right or can it be called summum bonum?
But there is something else that one must not ignore. A lot of times conflicts arise even without ego. Both parties can be right in their own way. But are there stands right for universal welfare? That ‘association of ideas’ would be missing in such scenarios and hence the utility of the action or thought would be missing too. So, both kinds of desires non-egoistic and egotistic bring mankind into conflict. Here, ethics has a two fold purpose: first to establish or find a criterion that kind of distinctively classifies good or bad desires and later some measure that can discourage bad desires and encourage good desires. That criterion can be the idea of peace, prosperity, inclusiveness, health and education for everyone. The maximum good for maximum numbers can be easily achieved. Roger Federer always believes that sports must be played with ethics and so does the life of a sportsperson. The utility of sports is reinforcing ethics and maximising happiness. In India he has admirers like Sachin Tendulkar who used to become Federer in virtual games.
The ethical aspect of the utilitarian doctrine maintains that good are those desires and actions that promote general happiness. This may not be the intention of an action, but only its effect. Here we can connect utilitarianism and the ‘association of ideas’ of Bentham. But on the other hand, when the visually impaired Simran ran with her guide Abhay in the Paralympics without any visuals of the finishing line or knowing the result, the highly committed act of her guide was enough to run like the two half-bodies. Seems both were listening to what great Kant emphasised, ‘you ought, you can.’
(The writer is the author of ‘Being Good and Aaiye, Insaan Banaen’ and ‘Ethikos: Stories Searching Happiness’. He teaches courses on and offers training in ethics, values and behaviour. He has been the expert/consultant to UPSC, SAARC countries, Civil services Academy, National Centre for Good Governance, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Competition Commission of India (CCI), etc. He has PhD in two disciplines and has been a Doctoral Fellow in Gandhian Studies from ICSSR. His second PhD is from IIT Delhi on Ethical Decision Making among Indian Bureaucrats. He writes for the UPSC Ethics Simplified (Concepts and Caselets) fortnightly.)
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
For your queries and suggestions write at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com.
