Utilitarianism: Whose Majority, Whose Community?

Background

In his work entitled, “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,” Philosopher Jeremy Bentham says, “the general object which all laws have, or ought to have, in common, is to augment the total happiness of the community.” Jeremy Bentham is credited as one of the foremost scholars on the principle of utility and his views represent a consequentialist approach to systems that govern society like law. For Bentham, “a measure of government (which is but a particular kind of action, performed by a particular person or persons) may be said to be conformable to or dictated by the principle of utility, when in like manner the tendency which it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any which it has to diminish it.”

Problems with the Utilitarian Approach

Bentham’s utilitarian has sometimes been shortened to the phrase, “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Though his theory is far more complex than this phrase and admittedly far more nuanced than the brief background provided above, I believe this is at least an accurate description of the bare bones of utilitarianism. That being said, I take issue with Bentham’s approach to law through utilitarianism because of the lack of a homogenous community for which to decide what or what doesn’t benefit or diminish. Utilitarianism does not give guidance on what constitutes a community or even the boundaries of a community.

This lack of guidance is particularly problematic in the context of the United States legal system because the U.S. is made up of multiple communities and what makes one community happy is certainly not going to make another community happy. Consider this example: In a recently gentrified area comprised of mostly affluent white people, there is a barbecue restaurant whose primary customer base is the African Americans who used to live there but have been displaced because of gentrification. The restaurant is what some may refer to as “a hole in the wall” and has no outdoor seating, causing many patrons to stand outside and eat while conversing. The “gentrifiers” see this as loitering and would like the local police to crack down on it. The patrons of the restaurant simply see it as eating and appreciate the time they spend conversing with one another. If this city were to enact laws that limit loitering, the gentrifiers would be happy, but the patrons of the restaurant would not be. The proposed legislation would make one group of people “happy” and make another group unhappy. Are both these groups not a part of the community? Though a bit simplistic, the hypothetical uncovers the problems when we think of the community as a homogenous group. Communities are made up of individuals with different wants and desires and it is nearly impossible to satisfy all those needs. We must then think of the majority and think of doing the most good, according to utilitarianism. However, no guidance is provided as to how one defines what constitutes a majority? Is it the racial majority? Is it the socioeconomic majority? Are the gentrifiers the majority because they now outnumber the displaced citizens? Does imposing a law that targets the patrons of the BBQ hurt them more seeing as how they have already had to deal with losing their neighborhood?

A Better, More Equitable Focus and Approach

I take issue not with Bentham’s idea that justice should not be analyzed based on its consequences; moreover, I take issue with a one size fits all or one size fits most mentality, especially when it comes to punishment. I think it would more equitable not to think of punishment on a community deterrence basis, but on a more retributive, individualistic basis. I’ve attempted to establish that there is no one homogenous community so deterrence looks different based on which community a lawmaker or judge decides to employ. If someone commits a crime, his or her individual circumstances should be considered, and the punishment should be focused not on how they can be an example for others in the community; it should be focused on how they can best pay their own debt to society, while still considering how they may uniquely navigate said society.

The idea of benefitting the majority or doing the most good becomes even more problematic because of the disparity within those who interact with law the most. Statistically, African Americans, LatinX? , and people from socioeconomically backgrounds interact more with the legal system than their affluent or White counterparts. Therefore, it seems counterproductive to approach a legal system in a way that is catered to people who likely won’t even encounter it. The emphasis should rest on those who interact with it and who do so on a disparate basis. The focus should be on ascertaining why certain groups like Black people, LatinX? people, or people from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds interact with the law in negative ways.

The Future “Majority” in America

Another critique I have of utilitarianism, to no fault of Bentham, is that it has gone from a “best for the majority” to a “majority rules.” In other words, our current legal system is controlled not in a way that considers the majority of the population, but in a way that is dictated by the majority of those who are involved – white judges, prosecutors, and policymakers. Because of this, I don’t foresee a change in the way utilitarianism plays out when the minorities of the U.S. become the majority. I foresee White Americans remaining the majority of influencers in the legal world, and it is for that reason, I must ask whose majority and further, whose community. Utilitarianism is malleable enough to be used as a guise to keep the dominant group in power and to disenfranchise Black and Brown citizens in the process. Unfortunately, I see this continuing for years to come, and one of the only ways to fix that is to increase the diversity of the influencers in the legal world.