Utilitarian justice. Non-benevolence?

PROLOGUE

Or an alternate title: “Is conditional suffering so bad?” This post to me seems quite literally to be the “devil’s advocate.”

Do keep in mind that you needn’t read the whole thing to post. You can post on specific passages / paragraphs you glanced over. You can skip to epilogue, or skip to each “Ie” at the end of a paragraph.

Please forgive me if I’m reiterating previous philosophical discussion. I did some short research in big, common ideas to see if the ground has already been thoroughly covered. I saw nothing on the obvious surface.

UTILITARIAN JUSTICE

Utilitarianism, in its broadest possible sense, is the allowance of short term ethical pangs for the sake of greater long term ethical consequence. To ultimately achieve a greater breadth of “happiness” by the cost of some former lack of it. Ie: It’s okay to have suffering if it ultimately brings out more happiness.

In the justice system, we often consider this to mean that some people (criminals / crime-driven people) will need to face uncomfortable circumstances to serve as an example or to take the fall as persons which lack the utility that others have more of. So they need “corrections,” or more extensive institutionalization. Often considered for their own benefit as well. Ie: We condemn people to a degree of suffering because it seems to be the only way to bring about more happiness, using our limited tools.

Some believe that human beings are intrinsically compassionate. That although we do terrible things, and we may be self-interested and competitive, we all ultimately agree on a clear common good. Ie: We (if Humans are all “utilitarian” at base) are perhaps ultimately compassionate.

I contest that notion, and suggest that human beings are not intrinsically compassionate, although we do have an intrinsic notion of justice. We do believe that something has to justify something else. But we do indeed desire suffering in others, not necessarily because it must serve a common good (as in the manner of setting an example for the common good), but because we do indeed believe in some sort of vengeance. This kind of desire is broadly frowned upon. It seems stunted, primitive. But then sympathy without assertiveness is also seen as fairly primitive and unproductive. In nearly all religions, and much ethical reasoning, we seem to bend toward an ultimate benevolence. Afterall, we want a benevolent “god,” as we would be afraid of any god otherwise. And so we reason that we should only extend that benevolent god’s desires just as we desire the god to be. Ie: I suggest that we’re not compassionate at base. But we do have a sense of justice.

I contest the notion of compassion, and suggest that we really bend toward an ultimate justice, rather than benevolence. That at times we do intrinsically desire suffering in others, but this suffering still needs to be justified by something else. The sufferer normally needs to have done something in order to fall out of our benevolent realm. I’ll put it in terms of heaven and hell.

Immediately, this reasoning for someone to fall from “heaven” to “hell” would fit with the need to set an example. Heaven is the prize of helping to create heaven on earth. But I believe it goes deeper than that. If Utilitarianism is all about benevolence, then “heaven” is really the only fundamental realm, and “hell” is just the steps necessary to heaven. Why the opposite concept? Why not simply heaven and purgatory? Why an eternal punishment in addition to an eternal reward? Ie: Why do we want a hell and a heaven in our beliefs? Is it just another mythical abstraction in order to set an example for others? I don’t believe so. I think that if we really believed that, we would simply have created some sort of a mythical “toll booth” to heaven.

One argument would be that our instincts betray our ultimate goals. Evolution found it necessary for us to desire punishment in others, because our species could only survive with this notion of setting an example for others. I believe that it goes beyond instinct. That the desire for suffering in others goes beyond the limbic region of the brain and may be incorporated in the neocortex. Or that it somehow takes part of our higher reasoning. Ie: Maybe it’s not about ethics but science. We don’t really want suffering, we just feel like we want it because nature made our brain that way- once again a natural force using the ideal of setting an example. I don’t think so.

Ultimately, I don’t believe in eternity or intrinsic reality for either of these mythical “heavens” or “hells.” But I do think there’s an important reason for why we’ve created both concepts in so many cultures- not only the concept of heaven. Maybe these go hand-in-hand with the “scale” of justice. The scale is thought of as primarily a manner of trade because of self-interest . . . Which goes in hand with the manner of setting an example, because the self-interested person will then be intimidated into being more benevolent. But I think the scale goes deeper than that, because there is a desire to cause suffering in others. We simply want that suffering justified in some way. Even though we fear “Hell” we still desire Hell. We simply want it as a mate to heaven. It’s the reason we somehow sympathize with the sly villain. We do indeed want to diffuse “evil” in the manner of forces acting against ethical concerns. But we don’t detest “evil” in the manner of forces acting against benevolence. We want that Hades doing business deep below us. We just want him staying far below us.

Our pursuit of Heaven coincides with Nietzche’s Will to Power, or Dr. Frankl’s Will to Meaning. It’s also compatible with Carl Jung’s single mind, the concept that we’re all ultimately the same person, just appearing through different facets (which would give us good reason for benevolence). But I haven’t seen Hell deeply incorporated into these beliefs, and I think they’re fully compatible.

It’s compatible with Carl Jung’s single mind. Because, afterall, even in my own mind there are some actions I take, in which some part of me wants to cause suffering in myself (punish myslef) as a result. Who’s to say that this doesn’t extend to an ultimate greater mind?

It’s compatible with Nietzche’s Will to Power, obviously, because, ultimately, power would still grant us the freedom to choose between benevolence and cruelty. But what I’m considering would not mean the same thing- because the Will to Power would be the means, not the ends.

It’s compatible with Dr. Frankl’s Will to Meaning because, strangely enough, people often find meaning with their punishment. They feel absolved, improved, vindicated, as a result.

What would I call this non-benevolent heaven-hell justice? This utopia with intrinsic suffering? It still strives to be gracious, kind, powerful. But it does have a darker side.

Considering such an idea isn’t crazy, how would politics mold such an idea into reality? They would not simply send everyone to “corrections.” They would take pride in that the mandate for certain people truly is to cause suffering. The absolved sufferers would not simply say they were made an example out of necessity. They would say such as “I was made to suffer because it gives meaning to my identity.” Would many want to admit such a thing? Don’t we often take pride in our own suffering?

Why is it that a lot of people seem frustrated in regards to prison? The inmates “to make an example out of” are being reached by human rights groups. They still suffer consequences, but many conservatives are growing frustrated that the consequences now seem milder. Especially, where suffering is involved. Clearly, so many of the reasons for prison sentences in history have been completely absurd. Still, we seem to sluff off many prison violations as unavoidable- whom are we fooling? We still seem to sometimes justify starvation in cultures because they seem less willing to develop and more willing to keep an unfair order of subjugation. (This reason, aside from greed and fear of economic collapse) Eg: “These primitive tribes can strive for their food because they still think women are inferior and want to insist on it.”

EPILOGUE

Also keep in mind, I don’t write this snarling in hopes that I make people suffer in moans of agony. I know that our world has plenty of it- so much of it completely unjustified. I just wonder if the open political body is in denial of something intrinsic to human values. We openly declare “we want everyone happy, we just have to take some painful steps.” Even though, the secret political body is probably largely confident in their value for suffering in certain people, and not simply motivated by greed. Eg: “Give them some ‘fight terrorism’ bs so that we can get rid of those pesky ‘arabs’ and bring back colourful pictures. They deserve it after stuffing their women in burkas and instituting painful circumcision, etc.” (Note: I make that political phrase to imply a tie between the Nazi holocaust and the “war against terrorism”- I don’t still assume these are exactly the same thing).

My angle, which I may later feel corrected on, is that the utopia that we should strive for (not the one we should demand exist above all costs) is one in which we openly admit a punishment on the basis of suffering to gain vindication for the sufferer- beyond mere example. A place for heaven and hell. Still much room for Libertarianism, Socialism, Capitalism, Communism . . . The social contract may simply, at times, carry more severe consequences than lack of capital or lack of freedom. Perhaps even more severe than execution.ie: we should admit an intrinsic desire for suffering amongst our members. Perhaps this would mark us as a cruel species.

But the consequences for not striving for such an utopia -and instead striving for a benevolent utopia- is possibly that we will continue to bury our lust for suffering in a pit. A pit which hides from the public and justifies suffering by our lack of choices. People will continue to suffer needlessly, and our reasons we hide behind being that we’re forced between economic and enemy pressures. But really, deep down, many of us will still push for that suffering because we feel a genuine desire. We will perhaps want suffering amongst our members- no matter how rich, educated, or civil we are.

This post is possibly a good reason why I should never become a buddhist.