U for Utilitarian

One of the most recent topics covered in class was ethics. The two main categories that we looked at were Kant’s categorical imperative and utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an intriguing concept that has been explored in many films. I recently watched V for Vendetta and found myself analyzing it for its ethical viewpoints. The film has many utilitarianism undercurrents, which make it a fascinating movie.

Utilitarianism is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” In other words: the greatest good for the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham is a major player in the formation of utilitarianism. Bentham argued that it is the idea of greatest good for the greatest number that should determine the concepts of right and wrong.

V for Vendetta bases its entire concept in the idea of utilitarianism. The movie is set in a Great Britain ruled by a fascist government. The main character Evey meets a masked man known only as V, who plans to destroy Parliament and bring about a revolution. Throughout the movie, Evey is faced with V’s utilitarianism practicality and his complete disregard for social constructs. V will do anything to achieve his goals, which he sees as the greatest good for the country. Both V and the government have utilitarian views, but they use these views to different ends. In the first of the scenes below, the government creates a biological weapon which they use to unite the country, at the cost of some lives. To their eyes, however, this is a necessary sacrifice. Those few must die for the good of the many. In the second scene below, V is inciting the country to a revolution, despite the deaths this will inevitably cause. V believes that the good that will come from overthrowing the government will outweigh the bad.

Rookwood’s Story: http://youtu.be/bEVNzlvJLEQ

V’s Speech: http://youtu.be/W2ty3b4EBMg

I do not believe that utilitarianism is a complete foundation for ethical determinations based on one slight problem: you can never know what the greatest good for the greatest number is in the long term. Look at the model we did in class with the four people standing on one train track and one person on the other track. Now, the immediate utilitarianism response is to kill the one person and save the four. Consider however, what those people may go on to do. Suppose the one person you killed would have gone on to find the cure for a disease and saved thousands of people, while the four you saved go on to do nothing of any importance with their lives. Was killing the one person then the utilitarianism thing to do? I understand that no one can know the future and that we can only act with the information we have. Nevertheless, utilitarianism cannot be an all-encompassing ethical basis.