Monday, March 26, 2007

Classroom Snippets: Bentham and Smith

We discussed Jeremy Bentham and utilitarianism a bit today. Pointed out that he had his body stuffed to be present at U of London board meetings (he thought people were too superstitious and needed an object lesson).

On the positive side, he really was trying to level out the playing field so that everyone counted in society, not just the privileged. The pleasure of Willy child coal miner counted as much as that of King George.

Aside from the picture of Bentham's stuffed head I was able to bring up on Google images, the most interesting idea to me was putting Adam Smith's agenda into perspective. Along with Bentham, the idea of capitalism was not to make a few very lucky people filthy rich but to empower everyone in society to be able to have a pleasurable economic life.

In other words, I don't think Adam Smith would have liked at all the unbridled capitalism of the late 1800's, where the worker was as disempowered as ever.

4 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I truly resent others viewing themselves as able to teach others through "object lessons", so much so that I sometimes "rebel" by not responding or ignoring these "messages".Respect me as a person and talk with me forthrightly. Don't patronize me for I choose not to be anyone's "patron". Bentham's philosophy signifies to me: 1) Bentham thought himself superior to others and presumes that others will "read" his lessons with the same interpretation as he would. To me, this signifies pride and presumption. 2)Bentham thinks man himself the arbitrator of the greatest good for all, determining Who, What, When AND HOW things were to "happen". He did not allow difference of value, goal or purpose for the individual. Again, this signifies to me presumption, elitism and pride in determining another's "greatest value".

Because I believe that man is limited in his knowledge about situations and men, man cannot make a just judgment. Justice is symbolized by balanced scales and blindfolded eyes, illustrating equality AND impartiality. Impartiality, I believe is an "ideal" not attained in this life. And, even while we work for equality, there will always be those with corrupted power, even when the powers are balanced. Each man is responsible before God for himself and his realm of influence. There cannot be a "holy nation" in the sense of corporality...that was Israel's problem, wasn't it, in the first place. Israel used her priviledge to "boast" in her election disregarding the "outsider". Even though the Church is responsible for works of charity, charity must come from the heart of the individual and not the corporate determitive "counsels" to bring about "object lessons".
It is ALL about politics, isn't it? And in light of previous posts, the question lies not in whether things are determined or undetermined, it is WHO
IS DOING THE DETERMINING!!!

Anonymous said...

So Ken, people who achieve wealth in life are "lucky" or as Al Gore would say, "the winners of life's lottery." Maybe instead of luck they worked hard and used their God given talents to earn their wealth. I wonder if you also think that socialism empowers people. I would say that nations that have tried socialism and it's full grown big brother communism have one thing in common, the misery it brings is spread equally.

Yea, capitalism has a tendency toward greed and it motivates some people to obtain wealth, but doesn't socialism cater to the desire that many have to live at the expense of others?

Ken Schenck said...

You'll be happy to know that I lean far more toward capitalism than toward socialism and tend to vote Republican on the economy.

But I don't think it is a start alternative. In other words, I'm not a libertarian who thinks the government should remove all controls. Similarly, those who contribute the least economically are part of the social contract of the land and have to be taken into account. Further, if they are ignored, they will bite the rear of the rest of society with crime and many other unpleasants. The trick is to empower them to make them contributors!

Schenckonomics...

Anonymous said...

Schenckonomics, sounds good to me!