Changing hearts and minds

I went to a presentation the other evening at Columbia University by a colleague of mine. The subject was the "anti-utilitarian movement" in France, which is probably a French intellectual movement that no one has heard of, maybe not even most French. As Wikipedia tells us, "Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility," with "utility" usually defined in terms of the well-being of sentient entities. I suppose that Jeremy Bentham, founder of utilitarianism, meant here the well-being of humans. So, who on earth would be against (i.e., "anti") utilitarianism?

From what I gleaned from the presentation the objection comes from the crass correlation between the provision of welfare by the state as a way of minimizing social tensions. One should not take from this that the anti-utilitarians are conservative. No, the AUs are utopians, although some scholars, e.g., David Graeber, associates them with the Left. At least, this is what I get from his piece "Give It Away." "Giving" should be a gift, something freely disposed of, without any anticipation of a reward or even thanks. Even the provision of welfare anticipates a reward: the poor won't riot! From what I have read the AU movement derives its ideas from Marcel Mauss, who wrote a book called The Gift (available here in English). Mauss was Emile Durkheim's nephew and heir of his sociological theories, and The Gift "is the foundation for social theories of reciprocity and gift exchange." Mauss, besides being something of a socialist, was a scholar of so-called primitive societies that did not participate in the kinds of modern economic exchanges with which we expect a return for our money. We give a dollar; we expect something in return. Proceeding from Mauss, the AUs (again as I understand them) hold that we also owe something that might be called "social debt."

At the same time as I heard this talk I happened to be reading a novel by the Swedish writer Jonas Karlsson called The Invoice. It seems that "a big international agreement" has been signed by "politicians and leaders from different areas of society," in which it was agreed to tax people on the basis of their levels of happiness. After the taxes were collected, there would be a redistribution to those with negative scores, who would receive compensation for their unhappy lives. It was reckoned by the powers that be that the "happiest" would be people with high incomes, those who had been born with silver spoons in their mouths or otherwise had won life's lottery.

The first-person narrator of the novel, a very average man of 39 -- he works part time in a video store and has no girlfriend -- receives an invoice in the mail for 5,700,000 kroner. (That's U.S. $740,000.) He thinks this is a mistake: he has no money, no savings even, and has lived the most ordinary of lives. He doesn't even consider himself a happy person, but in the course of the novel you come to see that he is happy, that he enjoys simple pleasures (mint chocolate and raspberry ice cream, listening to the rain beat against the windows), in contrast to all the stressed-out folks who can't bear to get out of beds in the morning. Very funny, very touching. It's not surprising that a socialist state like Sweden would come up with something like this.

Don't I look like I care, esp. if you are an animal?

But wait. Why should money be redistributed to people who are unhappy because they have jobs they don't like or are stuck with partners they have come to loathe? Taxing the wealthy (are we presuming they are happy?) to ameliorate inequalities is one thing, but a tax on happiness? The principle, which is not really worked out in the novel, is that society gives us a certain amount of "wealth." (Elizabeth Warren would say that "you didn't built it.") In socialist Sweden that wealth would include all the goodies of the modern welfare state. Having enjoyed those one's entire life, the presumption is that one should be happy and that one should cough up when someone else is unhappy. Well, as I said, the principle is not well worked out. Nevertheless, I am aware that international busybodies are afoot with ideas to institute "international taxes" that would then contribute to the busybodies' desire to fix the world.

The AUs, although people of the Left, are not yet there. As I mentioned, I find them utopian. Their aim, like that of most utopians, is to change people's "thinking." Thus, when we give it would be because we wish to do so, not for crassly utilitarian motives or in anticipation of gratitude. Shades of Kant here.