Gandhi’s economic views: Opposition to utilitarianism

I’ve finally given up on trying to convert and format the complete works of Gandhi into Word. However, I’ve found a process to convert the very large PDF document into text, and to have a super-fast text-editor to review the document.

The text has now been linked to the main blog post (here). You can also download the full text (oer 100MB) here.

With this out of the way, I’ll now commence an analysis of Gandhi’s economic views

Gandhi’s opposition to utilitarianism

———————Page 3740———————

175. SARVODAYA

People in the West generally hold that it is man’s duty to promote the happiness—prosperity, that is—of the greatest number. Happiness is taken to mean material happiness exclusively, that is, economic prosperity. If, in the pursuit of this happiness moral, laws are violated, it does not matter much. Again, as the object is the happiness of the greatest number, people in the West do not believe it to be wrong if it is secured at the cost of the minority. The consequences of this attitude are in evidence in all western countries.

The exclusive quest for the physical and material happiness of the majority has no sanction in divine law. In fact, some thoughtful persons in the West have pointed out that it is contrary to divine law to pursue happiness in violation of moral principles. The late John Ruskin was foremost among these. He was an Englishman of great learning. He has written numerous books on art and crafts. He has also written a great deal on ethical questions. One of these books, a small one, Ruskin himself believed to be his best. It is read widely wherever English is spoken. In the book, he has effectively countered these arguments and shown that the well-being of the people at large consists in conforming to the moral law.

[Note: The reference is to Bentham’s maxim of “the greatest good of the greatest number”. Gandhiji opposed it on moral grounds; vide “The Pietersburg Claptrap”, 13-8-1904. Ruskin, too, criticized the construction of a “science” of economics on the Newtonain model from which “social affections” had been wholly abstracted. Ruskin argued that the greatest art or science was that which aroused “the greatest number of the greatest ideas”.

MY COMMENT

This is a standard argument against utilitarianism – that people’s utilities (including their values) are not measurable, hence the outcomes of such a “calculation” could somehow be sub-optimal. Indeed, I have written about the limitations of utilitarianism in BFN, and also in my notes  on cost-benefit analysis.

Despite that, utilitarianism has very limited practical application, given the impossibility of measuring the relevant variables.

The closest that we get to is cost-benefit analysis, which is not particularly remarkable.

Indeed, Gandhi was fully acquainted with matters of cost and benefit. His detailed report on the Phoenix School that he started in 1904 bears witness to the fact that there was a FINANCIAL system at work even in such charitable work.

I don’t see the argument against utilitariansm to be of sufficient import to entirely set it aside on the ground that some “consequences” have been seen in the West. This is shallow thinking at its best.

Comments

Click here to cancel reply.

Your Comments

MOST RECENT

Load more ...