One of aspects of utilitarianism is that the ends justifying the means.?

Question

Can we say that Hitler, Bush, Sadam and etc are practicing utilitarianism?

Answer 1

I suppose that given the outcomes of some of the things you are referring to, it MIGHT be said that they were acting in a utilitarian way, but I would be greatly surprised if the idea that the specific actors you name could defensably called utilitarians themselves.

For one thing, utilitiarians tend to be materialistic and a little utopian. They want to make the best of all possible worlds, but only in ways that are immediately observable.

This rules at least George H.W. Bush out right away - we know that he is highly religious and idealistic, neither of which has any place in utilitarianism. Doing things because a supposed diety likes it or because is spreads certain ideas are right out. Quite the contrary... a utilitarian would have no trouble advocating the most abject of tyrannies if he thought it would work out better than democracy.

And in the sense, we might say that Saddam's rule did have a utilitarian angle to it. Whether or not you like the way things were run, he did keep the utilities operating, preserve national treasures, and keep rival religious factions from slaughtering each other. None of which has been true since he was deposed. Still, I would be surprised if he did any of these things because of some altruistic motives... he seemed more interested in preserving his own power base, image, and legacy (not utilitarian at all).

Hitler's goal of racial purity was at least a (mostly) objective and observable goal, so in that wise it might have been utilitarian. This view holds up, however, only if you de-person anyone who is NOT a member of the Aryan race. Which is also something most utilitarians would be willing to do. The typical standard for a 'person' for them often includes even animals - it can almost be defined as any entity capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.

So if these guys are utilitiarians, there were really miserable at it. You might cherry-pick one idea or another as being more utilitarian than the rest, but then you might do that to anyone. Nor can you really take one idea from utilitarianism and use it in place of all the rest of the ideas that go with that philosophy. Not accurately, anyway!

Peace.

Answer 2

No. You are missing the point. The main "end" of utilitarianism is the "greatest good for the greatest number." It's true that in the process of satisfying the most people, you might harm a minority. But you would never do so maliciously, as Hitler and Saddam did. Their ends were fundamentally evil.
I'm not a Bush fan, but he doesn't belong in the same group with the other two. I guess you could say he views his invasion of
Iraq as an ultimately utilitarian endeavor. I don't, because it's so obviously a boondoggle.
I'm playing devil's advocate here - what would we say about Lincoln if he had lost the Civil War (with half-million dead Americans)? Bush may have delusions of grandeur, but I don't think he's pure evil.

Answer 3

Utilitarianism is a doctrine that doesn't place any moral judgments on the intentions set forth. So yes, as long as the dictator de-jure claims justification for the good of the masses - any given atrocity can be within a utilitarian framework.

Answer 4

Utilitarianism means that whatever one does, it's for the good of all people. What you're talking about *may* be utilitarian in some cases (situation-dependent), but I would classify it as Machiavellian utilitarianism.,

Answer 5

Doctor Y, is correct...

A better description of most world leaders would be pragmatism...