Hard Times and Utilitarianism Essay

NOW, what I want is, Facts, and so starts Charles daemon raw Hard Times which first appeared as a serial publication in 1854. ogre regularly took inspiration from the prevailing conditions as topics of his writings and proceeds to make social commentaries by dint of his brand of creative fiction. Examples of these are Oliver Twist (Dickens, 1837) and Bleak House (Dickens, 1952). Hard Times was similarly inspired. The f subject is mainly a critic of Utilitarianism, the dominant philosophy at the time the novel was written.As Geoffrey Scarre (1996) express in his book entitled Utilitarianism, The eighteenth century was the green youth of utilitarianism, as the nineteenth was its outpouring (p. 49). The term utilitarianism was first coined by Jeremy Bentham in 1781 (Bailey, 1997, p. 3). His ideas were much derided fifty-fifty then and at the House of leafy vegetable at that when Lord Brougham dismissing Bentham as, having dealt to a greater extent with books than with men (Mac k, 1963, p. 2).Yet, despite his seeming nonoriety the Poor Law Amendment cause of 1834 was passed which defined and classified the poor and outlined how should be handled. The Act was and is seen as more or little Benthamite as concluded by Peter Stokes (2001) in his article entitled Bentham, Dickens and the Uses of the Workhouse (p. 711). It was against this Act that Dickens created Oliver Twist. Dickens continues his propaganda against such(prenominal) philosophy with Hard Times. While personifying the basic tenets of utilitarianism in his book, he is, on the different hand, equ altogethery condemning it in the same breath.This is already evident as you read the second split up where he strips his purported hero of facts of any semblance of respect when he describes the character that is Thomas Gradgrind earlier comically with his hair and head as a plantation of firs to keep the wind from its shining surface, all cover with knobs, like the crust of a plum pie (Dickens, 200 7, p. 10). This is a deliberate ploy to set an image in the readers mind which tin effectively cloud anything the character will expound upon even if it may lean towards the rational and acceptable.Dickens use of various figures of speech is as well ironic as it runs obstinate to the basic tenets his character is espousing. This form of mockery can be seen all done with(predicate)out the novel up until the end when Gradgrind sees the lights and begins making his facts and figures subservient to Faith, Hope, and Charity(Dickens, 2007, p. 387). What is it about utilitarianism that Dickens seems to be vehemently contrary to? Several of its article of faiths were lendn up in the book. Dickens took a i-sided approach and presented it on an natural scale and argued against it.We will explore how these were countered by Dickens by using excerpts from the book. In Benthams (1996) An inception to the Principles of Morals and Legislation he declared that An action then may be said to be conformable to the principle of utility . . . when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has to mitigate it (p. 12-13). Simply, put, as long as the number of people who are happy is greater that those who are not happy, then all is well.However, this main concept was methodically censured by Dickens by using examples that touched(p) heavily on human interest which therefore, from the perspective of the humane, such reasoning would not be reassert at all. A question on prosperity was posed to girl number xx to which she replied I thought I couldnt know whether it was a prosperous nation or not, and whether I was in a thriving state or not, unless I knew who had got the m cardinaly, and whether any of it was mine. But that had nothing to do with it. (Dickens, 2007, p. 82)With this illustration, it is hold that the individual not bad(predicate) should not be relegated to any mathematical computations. The point was further dri ven dwelling house with the coterminous example. And he said, This schoolroom is an immense town, and in it there are a million of inhabitants, and sole(prenominal) five-and-twenty are starved to death in the streets, in the course of a year. What is your remark on that affinity? And my remark was for I couldnt think of a better one that I thought it moldiness be just as hard upon those who were starved, whether the others were a million, or a million million.And that was wrong, too. (Dickens, 2007, p. 82) It is thus contended that such principle cannot and should neer be adapted in the formulation of policies and the establishment of institutions when it comes to peoples well beingness as we are more than mere data and statistics. This, however, is not the case in Coketown. Coketown is the community where the all the main characters worked and dwelled, survived and tarried about. This was where the major events occurred.Since it has already been established early on that fo llowing the tenets of fact can not lead to anything fanciful, it is not surprising that Coketown was depicted to be very spartan and has retained only what was soberly workful (Dickens, 2007, p. 37). It is an industrial town that is generally void of lively entertainment and distractions if one can see through the smoke with the textile plant as the main source of income and employment for the overtakes, a rather curt label to its workers as if there are no living and feeling beings attached to those appendages. Coketown, as John R.Harrison (2000) described it in his essay, represents the domination of an inhuman, utilitarian, industrial ethos (p. 115). Yet, Coketown can be viewed as the reality of fact. It embodies the cover representation of the theories of utilitarianism which further belies its effectivity on a community that lives to live and not just survive. indoors the town, there is the school run by schoolmasters who share Gradgrinds methods and beliefs. It can be gath ered that they need great memorization skills and would most likely be able to rattle off any evident characteristics of any person, describe or thing.The teaching is so rigid that there is exactly no place for any sort of creativity. There is just black and white. Murdering the Innocents indeed as the chapter is aptly called. That in itself on the face of it shows Dickens disapproval of such a stiff approach in education where minds are dictated to rather than molded. A further commentary on the misleadingly laudable wealth of knowledge was given, If he had only learnt a little less, how infinitely better he might drive taught much more (Dickens, 2007, p. 18).Another argument against utilitarianism is its apparent support of inequality while still following the happiness principle of the greater good. Utilitarianism claims that a relevant reason for tolerating inequalities is a gain in efficiency that is, we should be disposed(p) to tolerate the fact that some persons lives go less well than others if some aggregate of personal good is greater. (Bailey, 1997, p. 10) This principle is personified in the book by Josiah Bounderby, owner of the textile mill, owner of the bank, owner of the loudest mouth in Coketown.How he came about his wealth was not detailed in his narration of his rags-to-riches story. However, he is not one who attracts admiration and awe for his accomplishments. On the contrary, he is morally ruined by choosing only what he deems to be advantageous to him. He fully appreciates what he has with no regard to level off the disparity. Instead, he maintains and continues to exertion to raise his status even more by denigrating the lives of others. It was a fundamental principle of the Gradgrind philosophy that everything was to be paid for. Nobody was ever on any account to give anybody anything, or state anybody help without purchase.Gratitude was to be abolished, and the virtues springing from it were not to be. Every inch of the exist ence of mankind, from birth to death, was to be a business deal across a counter. And if we didnt get to Heaven that way, it was not a politico-economical place, and we had no business there. (Dickens, 2007, p. 375) Dickens demonstrates here that the greater good is subject to a lot of interpretations and it is normally self-serving in that the one who seems to be higher on the scale will never relinquish his power to those who had now been brand as the lesser good.However, the tentacles of the stick-to-the-facts approach did not stop within the boundaries of the town. It moldiness be noted that Gradgrind was being aided by a government official during his discourse with the students in the first chapter who more than willingly shared his beliefs and even went on to imply that these teachings must be applied at all times, at every opportunity and in every aspect of ones life even at something as mundane as papering your walls or carpeting your floors.Do not do anything that is cont rary to reality. There is no form merely function. What is all the more alarming is that Gradgrind was later made a Member of Parliament, one of the representatives of the multiplication table, one of the deaf honourable gentlemen, dumb honourable gentlemen. . . (Dickens, 2007, p. 127). Dickens makes it cognise that despite the fallacies and inhumane improbabilities of the radical teachings of utilitarianism, it can still muster followers and influence policies.Therefore, Dickens continues with more events and inevitable results and consequences in his book to trample any other doubt remaining as regards refractory adherence to facts. One thing that can be said about living things is that their behavior can never be predicted. Take, for example, the white tiger which mauled the magician Roy Horn in spite of it being with them for some(prenominal) years without any incident. More so with people whose thinking processes are more complex. One cannot take a general rule and expect t hat all will react and comply with it unvaryingly.Current studies have now shown that all aspects of personality are fundamentally unique and idiosyncratic to each individual (Deary, 2003, p. 6). disdain lack of any scientific proof, Dickens had already concluded that even individuals who practically grew up living, studying, acting out a way of life are merely suppressing their square(a) nature and would inevitably fleck back one way or the other. With these, let us now take a panorama at Tom, the whelp and Louisa. Tom and Louisa first made their appearance in the book in Chapter terzetto aptly entitled The Loophole.The eminently practical father was basking in his conviction that his children were the models of factual upbringing when he came upon his two eldest children one peeping through a hole in the wall and other peeping through the crack underneath the wall. It could be imagined that time came to a stop with all three just flavor at each other with incredulous expres sions on their faces. It was bound to happen that childrens innate oddment will get the better of them and explore realms outside their scope. The rule of thumb is when met with rules, immediately find shipway to go around it look for loophole.There were already indications of deviations from the inflexible path provided them. The mere fact that Louisa has began to question even if she was chastised to never wonder (Dickens, 2007, p. 71). There is no room for sentimentality or fancy, if you will, and is simply not allowed for the system of logical reason that it is e not concrete. It is not based on the real. It has no part that can be broken down and studied. It cannot be calculated. Utilitarianism hinders that aspect that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal body politic and that is the ability to feel and think in abstracts.Utilitarians, may contend however, that anatomically, it would be the opposable thumb that sets us apart. The gradual breakdown of the children who had such an upbringing took on different routes but both led to a destruction of their seemingly perfect lives. Tom gave much credence to his pseudo-freedom from the stifling rigidity of science and math and into the arms of vice. No productive outlet or substitute was provided for his suppressed emotions and was therefore easily prone and resorted to get-rich quick schemes.Louisa, on the other hand, had no choice but to give in to expectations of her and that is to get unite which led to the further repression of her emotions. Questions on social issues can be gleaned from the discussion of marriage betwixt Gradgrind and his young woman where Gradgrind, typical of a man and worse, a man blinded by facts and practicality could not read between the lines as he itemizes the pros and the cons of the proposal of marriage as if it is a mere business proposal and must be approached with much objectivity. What should take precedence when it comes to marriages?Should it be for pract ical purposes or tests of compatibility? If neither is no endless present, should one cut ties altogether? Anyway, as Gradgrind continues to be practical, his daughter laments as she is about to enter into next phase of adulthood when she has yet to experience childhood. Why, father, she pursued, what a strange question to ask me The baby-preference that even I have heard of as common among children, has never had its innocent resting-place in my breast. You have been so attentive of me, that I never had a childs heart.You have trained me so well, that I never dreamed a childs dream. You have dealt so wisely with me, father, from my cradle to this hour, that I never had a childs belief or a childs fear. (Dickens, 2007, p. 138) And to this, Mr. Gradgrind was sooner move by his success, and by this testimony to it (Dickens, 2007, p. 138) only to listen and break down and do some self-analysis himself when Louisa has finally allowed herself several years later to break free from he r suppression and made her father soundless the misery in her heart and the consequences it will ultimately bring.Another hapless victim was Mrs. Gradgrind herself who was reduced to something quite insignificant as she had been unable to cope with the academic precepts. She was however given the chance to salvage what remained of her true self and only because she gave up trying to absorb the useless facts that cluttered and rattled in her mind. It also makes a resounding statement that the redeeming characters in the book were only partly or not at all exposed to the tenets prescribed by Gradgrind.There was Sissy Jupe a. k. a. Cecilia to Gradgrind a. k. a.girl number twenty to her schoolmasters. She only joined the family later on and while she was not spared the rigors of fact bombardment, she was able to escape inviolate having had a solid upbringing in an atmosphere of discipline, fun and love. On impulse and on love, she was able to right the wrongs. She was able to persuade Harthouse, Louisas intended lover from leaving not through logic but by faith. She was able save Jane, Gradgrinds younger daughter from the plight of Louisa by first step to her a childhood not before experienced in that household.Then there was Rachael, a Hand in the textile mill who did not have any formal schooling. Yet, this did not belittle her in the readers eyes because she had passable compassion to carry the whole town. Then there were the genus Circus people. They were the only community who consistently showed a semblance of emotion, of camaraderie, of caring. Even the dog, Merrylegs, manifested human attributes and possibly gained more kindliness than Bounderby who publicly embarrassed himself for lying about his own mother and denying his heritage.All the proponents of utilitarianism met their downfall while those who showed piece led fulfilling lives. Gradgrind himself has discovered that aside from the wisdom of the Head. . . there is the wisdom of the Heart (D ickens, 2007, p. 295) and Dickens was magnanimous enough to give his character a chance at true happiness. We end this paper with words from Sleary, circus owner and philosopher as he sums up how it is and how it should be when dealing with your fellow men and when dealing with life.