The inutility of utilitarianism

Harris tries to deny this accusation and is critical of those who imagine that "well-being" must be at odds with principles like justice (p.39). Yet he merely asserts that it isn't, seemingly unaware of the implications of his earlier concession. One justified exception to maintaining and ensuring justice tolerates injustice as part of the paradigm. You can't suggest that we 'generally' maintain justice but sometimes injustice is permitted for the greater good. Justice is either at the centre of your ethical system, or it isn't. You can't justify exceptions and still maintain that the system is fundamentally 'just'.

The weaknesses of Harris' book whilst disappointing, are not entirely unexpected. These key problems of definition,measurement andinjustice are key weaknesses with any utilitarian ethical system.

Yet these weaknesses become more profound when brought into dialogue with the other provocative book (or series of books) I've been reading this summer - The Hunger Games.

As I've been making my way through the Moral Landscape, I've also found myself being engrossed by Suzanne Collins' fantastic Hunger Games trilogy (The Hunger Games, Catching Fire and Mockingjay) .

The Hunger Games is set at an unspecified time in the future in the land of Panem. Panem is ruled from the 'Capitol' by a brutal and totalitarian government led by President Snow. The Capitol oversees twelve impoverished outlying 'Districts' which are subjected to the annual 'Hunger Games'. The Hunger Games were developed to punish the citizens of Panem for a rebellion 75 years earlier and to remind those in the Districts of the consequences of rebelling against the rule of the Capitol.

The Hunger Games follows the story of Katniss Everdeen as she enters and wins the Hunger Games in unprecedented fashion. Through the threat of a joint suicide with Peeta Meelik (and hence proposing no winner to the Games) Everdeen implicitly challenged the authority of the Capitol. She provided hope to the Districts and becomes the catalyst and symbol of a rebellion.

It's been hard not to read The Hunger Games without Sam Harris' thesis bouncing around in my head. In a dystopian vision like the Hunger Games, ultimate questions of right, wrong, good, evil and well being become dominant themes. Will the Moral Landscape work in The Hunger Games?

When testing some of Harris' claims in Panem the failure to define well-being becomes problematic. How is well-being maximised here? The answer is very different depending on which perspective you take.

From the perspective of the Capitol and its residents, the primary constituents of well-being are 'the good life': peace, quality food, healthcare, clothing, entertainment, and prosperity. Indeed the entertainment and drama of The Hunger Games themselves greatly enhanced the well-being Capitol residents. The Games provides a classic example of justified injustice. Twenty four children battling for survival for the entertainment of the really important people (the Capitol) whilst simultaneously maintaining peace by reminding the Districts of the penalty of rebellion. The sacrifice of a few young children can be justified for the peace and survival of Panem and maximising the well-being of those in the Capitol.

Yet from the perspective of those in District 12 (Everdeen's home), the definition of well-being is somewhat different. Whilst they seek similar joys of life to those in the Capitol, food, health and entertainment the crucial difference is 'freedom'. They are slaves of the Capitol.

Those in the Capitol would suggest that for the peace and prosperity and indeed the very survival of Panem would require the slavery of those in the Districts. They were mindful of the past where the human race almost blasted itself into extinction. 'The Treaty of Treason' gave laws which guaranteed peace, but at a staggering cost including the freedom of the Districts and the annual Hunger Games as a perennial reminder.

Indeed Harris' conception also creates problems for those in the districts calculating whether they should fight their oppressors or not. How can you measure the cost of freedom? Measuring the freedom of a decimated few against the painful impoverished oppression of a larger number betrays no simple calculation. The well-being of freedom is incommensurable to having loved ones still being alive. And what if the rebellion failed?