By Chris Trotter*
Doing the greatest good for the greatest number has long been the ethical rule-of-thumb for New Zealand politicians. At least, that is how they would argue if challenged to justify their own, or their government’s, actions. What’s more, if they present their crudely utilitarian arguments with sufficient force, then most New Zealander’s will nod decisively, and bestow upon them that supreme Kiwi benediction: “Fair enough!”
It was not always thus. Within the living memory of more than half the New Zealand population, the ethical quality of a political decision would have been judged according to how closely it followed the precepts of Christianity. But, are the moral calculations of “Do as you would be done by” really all that different from determining government policy on the basis of how many will benefit from its introduction?
A utilitarian calculation indicating that a policy’s benefits are likely to be received by 90 percent of the population will, in almost every case, allow it to proceed. Providing they are not too severe, the policy’s detrimental impact on the remaining 10 percent, will not be enough to stop it. It is this, the ruthlessness of utilitarian reasoning, that has contributed to the popular uneasiness that often accompanies its application.
Certainly, the utilitarian calculations that led to Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government introducing the vaccination mandates left a bitter aftertaste. Pushing vaccination rates up to 90 percent was generally accepted as being “a good thing” – even “the right thing” – to do by a clear majority of citizens. With the benefit of hindsight, however, the pain and suffering inflicted upon the 10 percent of Kiwis who refused the Covid-19 vaccine – not to mention the fury of their reaction at being made outcasts in their own land – raised considerable doubts as to its moral safety. The utilitarian arguments presented by those who believed that, for the sake of the economy, Covid-19 should be allowed to do its worst, were no more palatable, and even more unsafe from an ethical point-of-view.
Christian reasoning, however, is no less fraught. If we are bound to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, then the art of godly politics is immediately reduced to making the same political calculations as all the others.
Would a farmer welcome the construction of a hydro-dam that drowned three-quarters of his farm? No. After he had been offered generous compensation for the land lost? Probably. After he has been told how many people will benefit from the energy generated? Of course. If the farmer, no less than the hydro-electric company, is bound to do as he would be done by, then his objections will, perforce, be tempered by the Golden Rule.
It would seem that the realities of practical politics makes utilitarians of us all.
What, then, should the political philosopher make of the Coalition Government’s decision to repose with just three Cabinet Ministers – Shane Jones, Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown – the power to decide upon the utilitarian merits of nationally significant development projects, personally?
In many respects, the use of words like “nationally” and “significant” makes the Ministers’ jobs considerably easier. Half the utilitarian battle is won before the ministerial calculation has even begun. If what is being proposed is in the interest of the nation, and will be to the significant benefit of its people, then, for the arguments of environmentalist objectors to be upheld, they, too, will have to demonstrate that a significant national issue is at stake.
By the very nature of environmental issues, that is no easy matter. Especially since Economic Development Minister Shane Jones has already made it abundantly clear that arguments claiming a project will threaten the survival of a rare species of native frog will no longer be enough to stop it. It is the greatest good for the greatest number of human-beings that is being weighed in the ministerial balance – not the greatest number of frogs.
It is difficult to see how environmental issues – most especially those relating to Climate Change – can be judged according to anything other than anthropocentric considerations. Since concern for the environment is an entirely human phenomenon, the political response to deforestation, species extinction and global warming will be determined according to the usual utilitarian question: What is the policy response that produces the greatest good for the greatest number?
To your average Greenpeace member this question is a no-brainer. Obviously, the planet, and all the living things that depend upon it for their existence, must come first. Unfortunately, while such simple sentiments look fine on a T-Shirt, the politics of “saving the planet” are just a little more complicated.
For a start, neither the planet, nor all but one of the living things dependent upon it, get to vote. Indeed, in the more than 4 billion years of its existence, the planet has seen species come and go with monotonous regularity. What’s more, as a ball of hot rock, circling an average-sized star, in an average-sized galaxy, it really doesn’t care who, or what, is circling with it. The quality and duration of the ride on the planet’s crust is of importance only to the 8 billion murderous apes who call themselves homo-sapiens.
Tell these homo-sapiens that their lives must be made inconvenient by, for example, the banning of all fossil fuels, and see how the utilitarian calculation unfolds. If, for a very large number of the voting public, the “greatest good” is interpreted as meaning “free access to the latest, gas-guzzling SUV”, then the Greenpeace member better hope that the “greatest number” of voters, like her, defines it differently.
Tell these clever apes that, in order to save an utterly indifferent planet, the overwhelming majority of them will have to renounce all the wonders of fossil-fuel-based civilisation and make do with the subsistence existence “enjoyed” by their ancestors, and they are likely to insist that you run the utilitarian calculation again – this time remembering that it is they who constitute the greatest number. Chances are high that the resulting definition of the greatest good will have little to say about the planet.
All of which may suggest that it is better to leave the judgement of what constitutes the greatest good to those who fully appreciate what’s at stake. Problem being, that even Philosopher Kings and/or Philosopher Technocrats cannot, indefinitely, ignore the interests and preferences of the greatest number.
Which can only mean that the essence of successful politics (which is not at all the same as rational politics) lies in persuading the greatest number of voters that your party’s definition of the greatest good, while not entirely fair, is “Fair Enough!”
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
42 Comments
“Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government introducing the vaccination mandates left a bitter aftertaste. Pushing vaccination rates up to 90 percent was generally accepted as being “a good thing” – even “the right thing” – to do by a clear majority of citizens.”
Clear majority? Not sure. I’d love to see the polling on this. Several times Trotter has shown his bias on this issue with similar unsubstantiated claims.
It was mandated by my employer that we all have boosters. One employee was prepared to fight this and was given an ultimatum re continuing employment. The vaccine mandate was dropped when their issue came to a head. Crudely a majority of my work colleagues supported their stance including myself.
Disclaimer-I’m pro vaccine including the purchase of paediatric vaccines previously unfunded for our child.
There has been successful personal grievances on this issue throughout the government sector. I can only speak anecdotally from knowing a couple that succeeded and friends of friends also in the same position. many of these cases the person involved has been offered a substantial payout to settle, as the department knew they didn't want it on the record.
Don’t think the 90% target was actually reached. Nevertheless the 90% vs 10% analogy is not irrelevant. We had a rule at work whereby we rated processes & outcomes and some staff too, in similar ratios. 90% good and 10% bad was acceptable. However in the case of staff some of the 10% bad was so bad that it overwhelmed the good, and there was inevitably a quick separation.
There is some real irony here. A big part of Labour being booted out was due to the anti-democratic path of 3-waters/co-governance supposedly.
Yet here we are with now an anti-democratic sticker being readied for significant projects.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/350229805/seabed-mining-company-wit…
Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM) chair Cindy Baxter called the withdrawal “a cowardly and cynical move designed to get around scrutiny of the mining project’s obvious failings”.
She said it appeared the company was looking to the fast track legislation and political lobbying to progress its project.
And the problem with just ignoring the plight of one environment/species at a time is it's an easier sell each time. But the damage is cumulative.
This government finally put a stop to the idea of marine sanctuary for the Kermadecs.
I am dismayed. 1. With this government for stopping it.
2. With the Labour government for putting it on pause
3. With Maori of various Iwi for initiating the stop.
Vandals the lot of them.
I suppose Chris Trotter might call it utilitarian. But maybe the decisions were made for a minority.
I am dismayed as well.
It would have been a gift to the world - to the future generations of the world. Perhaps the only opportunity to save many species from extinction.
Just as the protests against raising the level of Lake Manapouri became an election issue and saw Norman Kirk's government (who campaigned on not raising the lake level) win the election in a large part due to that stand - I'm hoping a party next time around commits to making the Kermadec sanctuary law and similarly wins on that promise.
Yes, my questions where to draw out the illogical claims made by Maori to their claimed special relationships to many things like trying to claim rights to the Kermadecs highlights.
It's a wonder they haven't tried to claim rights to sea lanes and charge boats for usage.
Labour put the interests of Iwi and the Maori caucus ahead of every other interest group that Labour have claimed to represent in the past. They made financial support of state supported media conditional on saying the right thing, conditional on only putting out the Labour govt viewpoint. All govt agencies became tools of the govt rather than an impartial public service. Labour politicised the bureaucracy and thereby endangered the concept of public service.
The interests of the 10 percent took priority over the 90 percent.
Now all the interests that Labour was supposed to look after have become hated by conservative forces and are seen as a threat to the survival of other sectors of NZ society. The state supported media is being dismantled because they are seen as mouthpieces of iwi and bureaucratic interests rather that being impartial commentators.
People can moan all they like about what is happening and what will happen but the awkward truth is that Labour weaponised some sectors of society against other sectors of society and that was an incredibly foolish thing to do. Greed and rogue ideologues became the driving force of the previously govt and from speeches by Chris Hipkins it appears those two forces are still in the driving seat of the Labour party.
Greed and rogue ideologues are present in the current govt but they are not in control of it. The govt increasing the working for families rates, the pensions and other social support to keep some kind of pace with inflation shows me that National have their eye on the middle ground still.
The Greens and Labour put social concerns ahead of concerns for the environment. Labour and the Greens wasted the opportunity to work out a consensus with the sectors of society that would be impacted by their actions to protect the environment because they didn't really care what happened to those sectors. Now those sectors are returning the favour.
National are also putting their concerns ahead of concerns for the environment which is unfortunate because National and NZ First by their nature are pragmatic operators and are best placed to work out a consensus to enable practical measures to be put in place to mitigate the damage that has been done and continues to be done to the environment.
Yes, Enlightenment thought, which gave us the utilitarian moral perspective, is dominant. But there are alternative philosophical premises and perspectives.
Over about 10 years of teaching moral philosophy, I conducted a little experiment with students - giving them the opportunity to answer which statement is most you:
1.I tell the truth because lying is always wrong.
2.I would tell a lie if it was the best thing to do in the circumstances.
3.I find it very difficult to tell a lie.
Each reflecting a different approach to moral decision-making.
In a very unscientific estimation over those 10 years - 75% pick 2; 10% pick 1; and 15% pick 3.
2 being the 'end justifies the means' or 'greatest good' ethical premise described by Chris (teleological ethics).
Very interesting how choices change when confronted with an environmental issue (in this case study the irrigation of the Canterbury Plains)::
1 Given the adverse environmental effects cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated as per a bottom line interpretation of the RMA, the proposal should not go ahead.
2 The water conservation order should not be lifted, but expansion of the run-of-river scheme should go ahead as this provides benefit to everyone in the district.
3. We already have enough land suited to dairy production elsewhere in New Zealand, therefore the pristine nature of the rivers and the naturally arid nature of the plains should be left unchanged/preserved.
My thought - we need to teach the basics of the philosophy of ethics as a part of the school curriculum as this gives everyone an understanding that there are various ways to make moral choices/decisions.
What they choose , and what they do might be completely different things.
Intention of the lie is the biggest thing to me . Parents unwilling to believe that their kids lie to them is the biggest problem , and making a big deal when they find out they do .
Of course we could mention Father christmas, the easter bunny , and the tooth fairy as balance .....
What they choose , and what they do might be completely different things.
Funny story in that regard. I did the same exercise with a group of adults over a dinner party. This group had known one another (and been in touch once a year continuously) from primary school onwards - so a very familiar and close knit group.
One adult picked 1. and his very best friend in the group (the best man at his wedding, in fact) argued that no one, but no one never tells a lie. I know both very well - and indeed the number 1 guy was very, very much a number 1. It wouldn't matter who might be insulted or harmed by the truth, or what the consequences of telling the truth might be - it's just that he's absolutely straight up and (at least during that dinner) couldn't imagine any need to lie and couldn't recall ever having told one.
That experiment is an interesting one. That 75% answered number 2 could lead to another moral/psychological dilemma - the best thing to do for who? Given the frail human nature of many, one's predisposition to the need for safety, in many relational contexts I'd suggest many might choose number 2 for their own self preservation.
There are many discourses on the difference between morals and ethics. Which ethics do we teach?
There are many philosophies - Indigenous, Buddhist, Christ, Vedic, the Dao, - and all of them are connected, all of them contain elements of truth. And it would appear that the true essence has been distorted in many ways.
In permaculture design the basic ethics are - Care for the Earth, Care for People, Share the Surplus - from there there are basic principles to follow.
All the teachings suggest that we are Oneness, but one requires gnosis of this, an experiential knowing.
How do we shift because it's needed? It feels like a Catch 22 at times. One can only transform at an individual inner level to effect change in the outer, yet one also needs a supportive environment, both inner and outer. And it is much easier if one is able to learn from an earlier age.
Which ethics do we teach?
Given the subject of planning, I teach a suite of environmental ethics - from those anthropocentric to ecocentric in orientation.
But yes, a big field of study for sure - and indeed that question often comes up about best for who? I get the feeling because it is an "I" (first person) question they are initially responding in terms of personal motivation, but many also frame it as 'I would lie about something if the truth was going to hurt someone else's feelings.
Students generally have never been exposed to the study of moral philosophy and really enjoy it.
That initial exercise, is my attempt to get students first thinking about what their own moral worldview is most closely aligned to, before putting the actual concepts forward. It is one of my favourite parts of the collective lectures.
I'm a 3 - my cheeks turning pink and developing a stutter make lying very difficult; I an just about manage a one word answer to my wife's "does this look good on me". But what is interesting is what do we want from our govt? A George Washington or a Donald Trump? When it comes to international diplomacy Trump wins. That a worry.
The 3. type in my model aligns to Virtue/Aristotelean ethics - moral decisions are made on striking a balance between excess and deficiency (which Aristotle described as the Golden Mean).
I grew up as a 1. based on my Catholic upbringing. I recall thinking as a child when I had to attend confession, how hard it was to come up with something I had done wrong - I didn't lie or steal or treat others with contempt/bully, I didn't envy others and was pretty content with my life generally etc. So I had to think very hard, for example, I recall confessing to having taken a cookie from my mother's baking without asking - and confessed to that once :-).
As I got older and in particular, as I started to study science, I became a 2.
And once I started studying philosophy, I try to think about all issues from the perspective of 3.
I find that really lucky that I stumbled into moral philosophy by chance!
I think all of us men deeply fear certain questions from our wives. Those ones where you just know that no matter what you respond, you are already deep in it, didn't do anything to deserve it other than pick the person to be your wife, and there is no easy way out. There are some really good comedians male and female, who can talk about this really well and have you in stitches as you recognise being put there.
As usual I found CTs article very good and noted that this one would be quite challenging for many.
On the environmental issues he addresses, I have often wondered what their response would be if those "murderous apes" (I laughed at that description) were told bluntly that to continue on their current consumptive behaviour at the rate is is both occurring and growing, they will ultimately poison the environment to the point that it will lead to either their own, their children's or their grandchildren's death?
Politically such a blunt statement would be unacceptable. I do note that most act as though they don't believe the climate change data, or they believe God will save us, or they just don't care. But then they keep on aspiring to have children?
Apparently we need media ‘influencers’ to tell us what the ‘good’ approach is for dealing with climate change and covid. Any debate of the associated science is discouraged. Then the ‘do-gooders’ wonder why some people have been left behind. Science is never settled and should always be up for debate.
Especially now. The experts have been wrong so much we need to have a debate as to why. I see they are now blaming climate change for getting the weather so wrong. News flash guys, you have been getting it wrong for decades….we need to talk about your competence….and that goes for all the experts. Financial, climate and Covid….all have no idea and are consistently wrong. Let’s have the debate for sure.
When do Kiwi's issue that supreme Kiwi benediction: “Fair enough!”?
Before even the policy has been implemented?
Or perhaps when they actually understand it? (If they are ever inclined to even try to understand it ...)
After one year?
After ten years?
Or perhaps only when an exceedingly good policy - that Kiwis never understood, therefore fought tooth and nail against, driven by short term selfish interest - but has been subsequently proved to have worked exceedingly well?
I refer to a policy Australia still has but NZ voted to kill.
Can you guess what it is?
Chris, throwing away the Bill of Rights Act and ignoring our 2017 pandemic policy was more Sleeping Dogs?Smiths Dream than "fair enough".
"Institutions need to be designed to withstand hysteria. Ours crumbled in the face of Covid, and in doing so helped to create the disaster Britain now faces: a disfigured economy, a damaged education system, an epidemic of worklessness, crushing debt. Only Sweden resisted the lockdown experiment, and has since counted fewer ‘excess deaths’ than any developed country.
...Four years ago, we also saw how susceptible government is to relying on computer models and projections which use flawed or incomplete data, and how vulnerable this makes us. Covid exposed a flaw in the democratic process which has still not been righted: there is no proper scrutiny of the modelling on which policies are based. This goes for the net-zero agenda too, while those who challenge the data are often derided as ‘sceptics’. It’s an unhealthy set-up."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/covid-and-the-politics-of-panic-2/
As an IT GUY i like models (especially sport betting ones.... ) , its the miss use of them thats the issue......
Our major mistake was fiscal irresponsibility combined with monetary loselessness one would have been enougfh....
Then they spent the rest trying to get re elected, the royal commision into this F UP is going to be entertaining to say the least.
Yep. A model is only as good as the data going in. They put crap and assumptions into these modelling tools, and then tweak them to remove the things that they don’t personally agree with. For Covid, they discounted whether there could be natural immunity built up. They made the assumption that Covid was different, and they totally screwed their models. That was just one example, and there were many. It will be interesting to see whether any of the sources of these flawed modelling tools are held accountable for their mistakes. Important decisions being made upon flawed models and a recipe for disaster, and we all now know what that looks like.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.