Critical Thinking

The Society for Applied Philosophy argues on its website that “many topics of public debate are capable of being illuminated by the critical, analytic approach characteristic of philosophy.” This essay argues that critical thinking in philosophy, as described in courses with that title, as well as in reference books on the topic, and in particular in the emphasis on argument, does not fully meet its objective, if that objective is to strengthen our ability to think critically.

I shall first define critical thinking. Then, using three philosophical works as benchmarks, I shall assess whether the thinking methods that they propose is capable of clarifying  issues  of public debate. The assessment, on the whole, finds that deeper, more analytical methods from other disciplines will strengthen our capability to think critically on issues of concern to us individually and also as members of organised society.

The three benchmarks are:  Jill LeBlanc, (1998) “Thinking Clearly. A guide to critical reasoning, Lewis Vaughn, (2008, 2nd. ed.) The Power of Critical Thinking, and the course notes for an undergraduate course on Creative Thinking at Macquarie University. 

 What is critical thinking?

This examination in part depends on a definition of ‘critical thinking,’ and in part, through an answer to the question of why we should teach it. It would seem almost axiomatic that to think critically would be to strengthen our ability to think through and decide on the issues and concerns that face us, and our communities. This is consistent with the SAP statement above, which implies that we need a critical, analytical approach to throw light on ways to resolve issues of public concern.  Such thinking is also consistent with the SAP statement

of its own objective:

The Society for Applied Philosophy (UK) was founded in 1982 with the aim of promoting philosophical study and research that has a direct bearing on areas of practical concern.

The term ‘critical’ has at least two meanings. One is to find fault; the second is the meaning implied by the immediately preceding paragraphs – that it is to think through issues of significance to ourselves and our communities. I will use the second definition as the only one which is useful, and draw on the three references to explain why it is ‘crucial or decisive’, to use a Lewis Vaughn description. He states: “You came into this world without opinions or judgements …and now your head is brimming with them”. He further adds:  “the quality of your beliefs is the fundamental concern of critical thinking.”  (op.cit .p. 1)

‘Ultimately, what critical thinking leads you to is knowledge, understanding and - … empowerment’  (op.cit.p.1)

“Critical thinking enables problem solving and active learning” (p.5)

An examination of various references on this topic gives similar conclusions. One series of definitions, however, is that critical thinking comes down to argument. Jill LeBlanc, in her treatise on thinking clearly emphasises the role of argument. “Our ultimate goal in studying critical thinking is to learn to evaluate arguments” (p.1.). She defines an argument as: “… an attempt to justify or prove a conclusion” (p.2).

The Macquarie University course ‘Critical thinking’, emphasises reasoning; “Our aim in this course is to teach you the fundamentals of good reasoning. We will illustrate these fundamentals by looking at reasoning from newspapers, journals, advertisements, textbooks, and some philosophical works.”

Despite the wide ranging definition that he uses, Vaughn also agrees with the emphasis on argument “Arguments are the main focus of critical thinking”, (p.10),

The Macquarie statement leaves unanswered, or at least only implies, a more fundamental question – why do we need good reasoning.  For this answer I will again draw on Vaughn - that it is to lead us further to knowledge. I also argue that in attempting to think critically we are seeking answers to the long asked questions “What should we do? “, “How should we lead our lives?”. The baseline references draw upon the early Greek philosophers in seeking answers to these questions. They are, in a strong sense, philosophical questions.

The Macquarie unit also places an emphasis on argument, but provides a wide ranging objective behind this approach: “We do not argue solely to make someone agree with us, but to find the truth about some matter, and to provide good reasons for others to believe our conclusions.”

LeBlanc also reaches beyond the argument to embrace wider issues. She says: “If you accept a candidate’s arguments to vote for her, you cannot forget that her policies will affect the lives of many citizens. Will her policies change their lives for the worse?”

These statements again bring up the issue that critical thinking has as one of its objectives, developing our thoughts, and arguments, on the broad social issues that we face in life. Finding a solution to the refugee boats coming to Australia and the loss of life with them is a good example.  But in the broad, I would argue that the objective behind attempts to think critically is to advance knowledge.

 Uncertain origins

The above propositions put forward the early Greek philosophers and the dialectic approach to explain the development of critical thinking. De Bono (2000) also makes this assertion. However, other references claim a development of critical thinking concepts as late as the 1980s (Tucker, 1997).

Critical thinking (CT) gained widespread recognition as a behavioral science construct in the

1980's when Goodwin Watson and Edward Glaser’s ‘Critical Thinking’ Appraisal became a

widely used tool for assessing the effects of undergraduate education on reasoning skills,

Subsequent paragraphs in this essay tend to draw the conclusion that there are several theories on critical reasoning. As the three base references are philosophical in origin, and as the authors themselves are philosophers, we can reasonably categorise as philosophical, the critical thinking methods in this paper in the comparison with other disciplines

Concerns with the suggested approach on thinking critically 

The questioning of this approach is based on three concerns:

1. That it does not present the full pedagogical content of what is required to think critically.

2. That critical thinking, as defined, is oriented excessively to criticism - that it does not build        on itself. It is a thinking approach that can be contrasted with that of the sciences.

3. Some of the concepts that are presented are misleading

In a sense these are sins of both omission and commission.    ;

Omissions in concept and practice

Evaluation

This primary concern arises from the implications of LeBlanc’s statement on the importance of critically examining political commitments, and the impact that they have on our lives. Evaluation practices attempt to question our thinking about policies that affect ourselves (and our societies). Yet evaluation does not appear to be covered in any of the referenced texts on critical thinking. I argue that effective evaluation is necessary for the putting forward of arguments and deciding of answers to the many questions that we are asking of ourselves, of our societies, or our governments.

I will first briefly explain evaluation and then expand on its role in thinking critically

Evaluations can be put in terms of an argument. If I state for instance, The intervention in the Northern Territory indigenous communities has proven successful; and if I provide positive statements from several politicians and public servants as reasons for supporting this assertion, then I have an argument. And, I trust, an example of critical thinking^[1].

If a formal evaluation of this program has been undertaken, I have a strong factual basis behind the conclusion that has been drawn. An independent evaluation will tell me what has worked, what has not, and will give indications, sometimes quite powerfully, of what should or should not be done in the future. In short, evaluations provide sound arguments behind adopting a particular course of action. Much new legislation and many policy initiatives require that they be evaluated after a stipulated period of operation. 

There are many programs set up by public authorities , charities and other  non-government agencies, and even by private businesses, the evaluation of which lead society into new ways of thinking. Examples include the benefits of early interventions in education; provision of mental health services, types of prison reform, ways of stopping unethical conduct in the public sector, and so on. These are all social issues about which we need considerable critical thinking.

Evaluation has many components: ex-ante evaluation (which is an evaluation of the thinking before it is put into practice), impact evaluation, process or on–going evaluation, ex-post evaluation. These components and their role in collective thinking have not changed greatly in several years. See Bowden (1988) and texts such as De Coninck et al (2008). These texts describe methods of analyses that are designed to strengthen our thinking on programs, small or large, that have the potential to contribute to the betterment of society, 

Creative thinking

A second aspect of the critical thinking process that raises a concern is that the texts mention nothing on creative or innovative thinking. It could well be argued that much  thinking that is important, that is attempting to resolve the question of what should we do about a particular issue, requires creative or innovative thinking.   It is questionable whether the methods set out for analysing arguments engender creative thinking. The Macquarie notes for instance specifically mention that one of the two types of reasoning even prevents imaginative reasoning: 

A deductive conclusion may be used to arrive at something which is implicit, but will not allow us to arrive at genuinely novel facts.

There are several approaches to generating innovative thinking that could be taught. This writer’s favourite is The Five Whys - a thinking process developed by the founder of the Toyota Car company. It asks in succeeding order why a particular problem is occurring. An example is Why is the world is facing economic problems at the moment? – Because of the Global Financial Crisis…Why did this crisis occur? – Because loan funds were too cheap…Why were loan funds,,,, etc., etc. 

Other creative thinking concepts are Edward de Bono’s concept of Lateral Thinking (1970), or his revised Six Thinking Hats (2000).There are many others – brainstorming, delphi techniques, etc. - available in the literature.

Critical thinking as criticism

Yet another concern, related to creative thinking, is the negative aspects of critical thinking. To be critical is one definition of a criticism.  It is relatively simple to pull apart an argument.  It is much more difficult to build a thought that wins acceptance, that advances knowledge.   My concern is that the emphasis on argument and on the analysis of arguments makes it much more difficult to move thinking forward.

The skill at unmasking error, or simple intellectual one-upmanship, is not completely without value, but we should be wary of creating a class of self-satisfied debunkers (Roth, 2010)

It could well be argued that this difficulty has also likely been the reason why little agreement is achieved in philosophical thought. Many examples can be given of this disagreement. John Stuart Mill, in the opening sentences of Utilitarianism ,writes:

From the dawn of philosophy, the question concerning the summum bonum, (the controversy respecting the criterion of right and wrong) has been accounted the main problem in speculative thought, has occupied the most gifted intellects, and divided them into sects and schools, carrying on a vigorous warfare against one another. And after more than two thousand years the same discussions continue,….

An even more telling example of the negative power of argument is seen in some of these ‘sects and schools’ .The Beauchamp and Childress formulae, for instance (2001), a combination of Kant and Mill, although developed for biomedical ethics, provide an extremely wide ranging set of ethical guidelines. They are taught in the health sciences disciplines throughout much of the world. But they are disputed.

 Bernard Gert’s formulation of a common morality (2004) has been treated in an even more cavalier fashion. It is perhaps an even more encompassing theory. But at a relatively recent symposium, it is attacked by every philosopher who had a say on Gert’s prescriptions. (AJPAE, 2005) The essence of their attack was a counter-argument, not an attempt to find a universal formulation.

In one clear example of the negative approach engendered by argument, in  a book edited by Peter Singer, one philosopher describes as ‘Internecine warfare’, the conflict between deontology and utilitarianism, before going on to put forward his arguments for his own theory – Virtue Ethics  (Pence 1993). LeBlanc, in her definition that “critical thinking is to learn to evaluate arguments”, sets a scene where our thinking is not to portray a positive, forward looking or innovative  picture, but to assess whether the argument, and therefore thinking behind it, is faulty. Possibly of greatest significance is that part of a course on thinking critically which teaches you to recognise logical fallacies.  The Macquarie Notes tell you that some references provide over 90 different fallacies. Macquarie itself has upwards of twenty - ambiguity, equivocation, vagueness, unclear meaning, vacuity, question-begging, circular, relevance, straw person arguments being among them. There is only one purpose in learning these fallacies – to recognise fallacious arguments. In other words , to tear them apart.  Positive thinking – the advancement of knowledge  - would not use these techniques.

A contrast can be drawn with the thinking approach of the sciences. Any new theory will face opposition, often widespread, and often critical. Look for instance at the controversies over the hobbit discoveries in Indonesia (Homo floresiensis) or over global warming. The professional recognition will go in the long term, however, primarily to those who build on or take these theories further. The methods used will primarily be empirical.

The value of empirical research

A fourth concern is the near complete ignoring of empirical research, and in particular, the use of statistical analysis in research. None of the base line references noted above have provided much of substance on empirically based research. Yet if we quote a research project with a heavy statistical content as a premise in support of an argument, it is necessary that we have also the statistical capabilities to evaluate that research paper. Uncritical acceptance of a statistical analysis, due to inability to assess the statistics, is uncritical thinking, not the reverse.  This issue is linked with the concern about the validity of other types of argument, discussed in the following paragraphs.

Concerns over misleading content

Argument

The concerns of this paper about argument as a basis for critical thinking are not without support. One example is from Louis Pojman who, writing with Lewis Vaughn in the sixth edition of a widely used undergraduate text, Philosophy. The Quest for Truth, states that he has “striven to present opposing views on virtually every topic“(2009).  His is a questionable assertion, for the truth rarely has two sides. Nevertheless, Pojman does assert that all philosophical issues have one position and a counter argument.  Bernard Williams also speculates that philosophy is about reflective, persuasive argument (1985). Many publications on philosophical ethics, including those of JS Mill cited above, are often little more than arguments that refine and re-interpret the various differences and arguments over ethical  theory.

It is apparent that the “internecine warfare” is a well-established feature of moral philosophy. Such a concept may cause few problems when the wrongs are simple and straight forward.  The problem is a real one for many teachers and trainers in ethics however, when the ethical issue is unclear. Such issues exist in almost every discipline,

John Lachs decries this approach. He argues that “young philosophers (in the US) are taught that argument is king …that knowledge of facts is superfluous” (2009). These paragraphs endorse Lachs’ viewpoint.

The adoption of argument as a way of thinking is widespread .Ethical classes recently introduced into Australian  schools (in NSW) have a session on argument .One of the Year 5 topics is ‘The Structure of Arguments’. The aim for this session is

This topic introduces students to the most fundamental tool of logical (and hence ethical) reasoning, viz. the philosophical one of argument.

The children’s ethical classes reach as far as defining and discussing deductively valid arguments.

Inductive and deductive arguments

I have particular trouble with inductive and deductive arguments.  According to Vaughn “arguments come in two forms, deductive and inductive.  A deductive argument is intended to provide logically conclusive support for a conclusion; an inductive argument is intended to provide probable  - not conclusive – support for its conclusion” ( p.68)

Inductive arguments can present facts

I have a particular difficulty with inductive argument being classified as weak or strong, never valid. Yet a deductive argument can be valid. In the disciplines with which this writer is familiar, most development is based on observation. And facts. But if we take an example from the Macquarie Notes:

Every flame I have ever put my hand in has burnt me. Therefore, if I put my hand in this new flame, it will burn me.

“Is this argument valid?”  The Macquarie course argues that it is not valid …….”because it is possible that putting my hand in this new flame might not burn me. Perhaps this flame is entirely different from every other flame I have experienced, and would have some entirely different effect. It would be possible for the argument to have its premise true and conclusion false, so the argument is not valid”.

The argument is, of course, valid (in the normal sense of the word). It is a fact that you will be burnt, because of the laws of physics.

The sun will rise tomorrow. It is not only because thousands of years of observations say it will, but the physical laws of the universe saying that it will.  If we come to know that it will not rise tomorrow, it again is due the same laws and the functioning, or perhaps malfunctioning, of comets, asteroids, and other missiles in space.

Perhaps the strongest argument that inductive reasoning can present facts is in a research thesis.  When first set out, it may only be a theory – that this particular drug X will prevent illness Y. The presentation for obtaining funding will be an argument. After the research, if successful, and years of verifiable use, it has become a fact. Penicillin is a good example.

“Inductive arguments are not truth preserving” is a statement by Vaughn (p.10), a statement repeated by  all three references. True, the white swan observation until the black swan was sighted was misleading, but it had no impact on useable knowledge. Many inductive observations have produced great advances for the human race. To criticise them as not truth preserving is to deny the value of these analyses.

Deductive arguments

Leblanc includes what she describes as categorical statements, or categorical syllogisms, under this category. A frequently quoted example is: 

All humans are mortal,

Socrates is human

Socrates is mortal

My concerns are twofold: One is the definition: “these are arguments which, if the premise is true, the conclusion must be true’ (LeBlanc p.110).The second is that along with a belittling of empirical research has been the elevation of deductive arguments to the possibly of being valid.

The validity of deductive arguments

Valid, according to the dictionary has several meanings - sound; just; well-founded; producing the desired result. Yet we can get a situation where an argument can be valid but still be faulty due to unacceptable or faulty premises. To this writer, a faulty argument is an invalid argument.  Most observers would have the same response.

LeBlanc states: “it is sometimes said that deductive arguments are true in all possible worlds.“ (p.110). If the premise is correct, the conclusion is correct. In this case the argument is stated to be ‘valid.’

The premise however, may not be true. We can question not only its truth but its relevance. Her example is                    

If I were an earthworm, I could fly.

But I cannot fly,

So I am not an earthworm.

LeBlanc asserts that this argument denies the necessary condition. Therefore, it is “a good argument”.  But the other premise is false – you are not an earthworm and they cannot fly; so overall it is an invalid argument.

Dorothy Rowe, in her Why we lie (2011) sets out an argument where the premise is true, but “which can make an entirely false deduction “(p.41):

This new person looks very much like my cousin Harry

Harry is a liar 

Therefore this new person is a liar.

The Rowe argument appears illogical yet the premises are true.  The two guidelines appear to contradict. The Rowe argument however could be inductive – by analogy. Her use of the term “deduction’ and the similarity of the arguments illustrates this writer’s concern with definitions and terminology. The use of commonly accepted terms in an unfamiliar setting can easily mislead.

Deduction relies on observation, on research

The statement that t for a deductive argument he premises have to be true before the argument can be acceptable makes considerable sense. The reference texts tell us that there are four reasons for accepting the premises – common knowledge, personal experience, expert authority, and research (LeBlanc p.111). All are based on observation. 

The deductive argument, therefore, in the ultimate analysis, relies for its validity on induction.

Advancement of thinking

Another concern under this category is that it is very difficult to identify a deductive argument which advances knowledge. Most deductive arguments, it would appear, are conditional.  A conditional argument is possibly the most common deductive argument. Such an argument takes the form. “Only students with B+ grades can enrol in the subsequent unit’.

It would seem that if an argument relies on a condition, then for the argument to advance knowledge the condition would have to be filled. But we can never be sure that the condition can be met, or whether wide observation or some empirical research is necessary to determine if the condition can be filled. Take the example of a conditional argument that attempts to advance our thinking:

The argument for introducing internet censorship is that our children can find disgusting websites. These websites harm our children in that it gives them a distorted view of life.

But censorship is contrary to the widespread endorsement of the freedom of speech.

And we cannot prove that these websites cause any harm to children. If we could prove that children were harmed we could advocate censoring the internet.

Other arguments – ending war in the Arab countries, reducing crime in the streets, will usually be conditional on some premise of which we cannot be certain. Until the condition is fulfilled, and found to be valid, there is no way in which the argument would move us forward.

The exception occurs on programs which have been evaluated.  In other words, if  we have obtained strong evidence, proof even, that the condition has been effective. An example can be drawn from an argument on childhood education strategies that children of low income, low education families would do better in their school studies if they received a one year or two year ‘head start’ at school.  This was a conditional argument.  An ex-ante evaluation said yes, it was likely that they would do better. The program was put in place; an ex-post evaluation proved the assertion to be correct. The program had an impact on early childhood education for all children as well as for minority children (Graham, 1984).

Excessive definitions

The above paragraphs have been leading to the concern that “critical thinking” as defined, introduces a raft of definitions that do not assist in clear, innovative thinking capabilities. It can be argued that ‘clear thinking’, as expounded by the references quoted in this paper, consists primarily of a series of definitions that are used to categorise types of arguments or parts thereof. It is difficult to determine how these definitions strengthen a person’s creative thinking. Examples are the terms inductive and deductive reasoning themselves, noted earlier, when in the final analysis, all reasoning relies on observation of some type. Deductive reasoning is possibly the more serious offender - sufficient and necessary conditions; denying the necessary condition; affirming the sufficient condition – in particular, are concerned with conditional statements, LeBlanc describes her chapter on categorical logic ( the ‘Socrates is human’ logic) as ‘terminology-intensive’ (p. 54).

Linked and convergent premises, sub arguments, counter considerations, etc. are other definitions where the contribution to strengthening critical thinking in the positive sense argued in these pages, is difficult to identify. The definitions, and what is argued as excessive terminology will assist a reviewer in pulling an argument apart , in determining what is wrong with the argument. They do little to strengthen  innovation  in thinking  - to create positive, forward looking thought.

The reliance on definitions is epitomised in one lecturer’s statement: “Only DEDUCTIVE arguments can be valid or invalid (inductive arguments can be strong or weak, such as arguments based on "research" and observation)”. An argument where “a wrong premise can produce a valid conclusion has to be deductive by definition”. (personal correspondence).

Other disciplines conceive critical thinking differently

Under this category first must be mentioned a work by Linda Elder and Richard Paul. Elder is the President of the Foundation for Critical Thinking. They argue that “all reasoning is based on data, information and evidence” (Elder & Paul, 2007,Loc, 163). They assert that there are eight universal structures of human thought: That it generates purposes, raises questions, uses information, utilises concepts, makes inferences, makes assumptions, generates implications, and embodies a point of view. Aspects of their structure coincide with the main themes put forward in the baseline references, but for the most part, the two thinking schemes are very different. One obvious difference is their  argument that  basis behind all thinking is empirical.

A second issue is the variations in critical thinking methods advocated by the different disciplines. If you search the holdings of a major library for texts on critical thinking, you will locate many, numbering in the several dozens. A sample of topics covered in a major university library include critical thinking for language, for sports students, nursing, psychotherapy, dental research, social care, sex and love and several others.

Most do not define critical thinking as argument. Taking just one example Critical Thinking in the Intensive Care Unit; (Cohen 2007), the author draws on the following for a definition:

Alfaro-LeFevre (1999) defines critical thinking as careful, deliberate, outcome-focused (results oriented) thinking that is mastered for a context. Critical thinking is based on scientific method; the nursing process; a high level of knowledge, skills, and experience; professional standards; a positive attitude toward learning; and a code of ethics. It includes elements of constant revaluation, self-correction, and continual striving for improvement.

Another example is Critical Thinking by a psychologist and business consultant (Feldman, 2009). He sets out four strategies for becoming a critical thinker. Elements of his analyses coincide with aspects of the three baseline references, but much of his work has no parallels.  His examination of reasons to doubt certain types of argument largely duplicate the baseline references, for instance, but his treatment of explanations however, is considerably more detailed. Covering roughly 20 % of the book, he treats explanations as a tool for strengthening ‘discovery and understanding’. LeBlanc assigns 9 pages out of close to 300 to explanations -  a much less detailed coverage, and to this reader, quite superficial.

Yet a further example is peer review. Although much criticised, peer review is a process which is universally used to assess whether a particular line of thinking advances human knowledge. The methods adopted in peer reviews across the disciplines would appear to vary widely. They are not based on argument ,and  do not necessarily follow the concepts presented in the three references that this paper has used.

That different disciplines advocate different methods of ensuring one’s thinking is critical, do not necessarily condemn the methods advocated in the three references.  But they do throw doubt on any claim to a comprehensive coverage.  The differences also suggest the possibility that other methods may be more effective.

In conclusion

To sum up this argument: If we define critical thinking according to the concepts set out in the three references that opened this paper, then those concepts fail to provide a complete outline of possible approaches to strengthen critical thinking. They also could also  ,in the concepts that they do put forward, mislead a student into  adopting less effective methods.

References

Alfaro-LeFevre, R. 1999. Critical Thinking in Nursing: A Practical Approach. Philadelphia: WB Saunders.

AJPAE. Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics  (2005) Book Symposium. Vol.7 No. 1

Bowden P (1988) National Monitoring and Evaluation , Avebury , Aldershot

De Bono, Edward (1970). Lateral thinking: creativity step by step. Harper & Row

De Bono, Edward (2000). Six Thinking Hats  Penguin London

De Coninck, J  et al (2008) Planning, monitoring and evaluation in development  organisations Sage, Los Angeles 

Elder, Linda and Paul,  Richard (2007) The Thinker's Guide to Analytic Thinking . Kindle Edition

Graham, H. (1984). The uncertain triumph: Federal education policy in the Kennedy and Johnson years. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Lachs, John “Can philosophy still produce public intellectuals? Philosophy Now,  September/October, 2009.

LeBlanc  Jill, (1998) “Thinking Clearly. A guide to critical reasoning. New York, WW Norton

Pence, Greg (1993). ‘Virtue Theory’ in Peter Singer (Ed.). A Companion to Ethics, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, p. 249.

Pence, Greg (1993). ‘Virtue Theory’ in Peter Singer (Ed.). A Companion to Ethics, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, p. 249.

Pojman, Louis P and Vaughn, Lewis (2009) Philosophy. The Quest for Truth (7th ed.). New York Oxford University Press

Roth, Michael, “Beyond Critical Thinking.” The chronicle of higher education. Jan 3 2010

Rowe, Dorothy (2011)Why we lie.  London, Fourth Estate , Harper Collins

Society for Applied Philosophy (2012) on the website for its annual conference:

http://www.appliedphil.org/view/index.html  Accessed  August 2012

Tucker, Robert (1997),  Less than Critical Thinking.  Accessed August 2012

http://www.intered.com/storage/jiqm/v6n3_4_ct.pdf

Vaughn, Lewis, The Power of Critical Thinking (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, 2nd. ed.)

Williams, Bernard (1985) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London, Fontana

1.    The Macquarie University course, PHI 120, Critical Thinking, is online. Quotations and references are available only to those with a password.  Excerpts containing the online references will need to be accepted without verifying,

---

[1] This program was introduced by the Australian federal government in 2007 to address claims of rampant child sexual abuse and neglect in Northern Territory aboriginal communities. 

Utility and its critics

Hugh Breakey, editor of Australian Ethics and an outstanding contributor to matters ethical has put an article on his blog. Why I am not a utilitarian (anymore)  

http://hughbreakey.blogspot.com.au

Hugh has joined some outstanding philosophers. Amartya Sen is the latest in a long line. In a recent issue of the Journal of Applied Philosophy, Sen argues that “the utility calculus can be deeply unfair “(to those who are persistently deprived). Sen (and Hugh) join Bernard Williams, John Rawls, and Martha Nussbaum, who are among the better known critics. My tutor in Philosophy 101 (not all that long ago) is among the lesser known.

This article argues that they are all wrong. We must of course remember there are different versions of utility.  So we have to know which version Hugh no longer belongs to.. There are three main versions – Jeremy Bentham’s ,John Stuart Mill’s and Peter Singer’s , but also several other versions -  Act and rule utilitarianism being two of the better known. This paper argues for Mill’s version.

The principal criticisms are primarily against Bentham’s version- “the greatest good for the greatest number,”    an ethical guideline that is clearly unacceptable, for it rides roughshod over minority groups. John Stuart Mill arguing that utility theory encompasses moral thought (and disagreement) from the days of Epicurus, specifically rejects the minority argument. Iin On Liberty, he warns  us that tyranny of the majority is “among the evils… society requires to be on its guard”.

Amartya Sen has not read Mill’s arguments very closely. Sen argues for human rights as a personal freedom. Mill in fact equates happiness with individual freedom “We may refer (the question of happiness) to the love of liberty and personal independence… but its most appropriate appellation is a sense of dignity”   Mill‘s alternate version of utility, in his Utilitarianism, puts lie to Williams, Rawls, and Nussbaum. Mill has two overriding criteria – promoting happiness and avoiding pain. He argues the optimum approach for fulfilling those guidelines is minimising harm to others.

 “The moral rules which forbid mankind to hurt one another (…which include wrongful interference with each other’s‟ freedom) are more important to human wellbeing than any maxims“. One has only to read of the many causes for which Mill fought to know that these thoughts are deeply embedded within him. Sen, Williams, and Rawls, wrote as though Mill never made this statement. Mill has placed preventing harm at the highest level - overriding happiness. Again he states “a person may possibly not need the benefit of others but he always needs that they do him no harm”.

These statements are inarguable

Nussbaum is another issue.  Peter Singer asserts that her capabilities approach in fact draws on utility theory. Singer is correct. Nussbaum is attempting to maximise happiness, and minimise harm, through a maximising of freedom and well-being.

But there are stronger arguments why Nussbaum and Sen ,in particular , are simply wrong when they criticise utility, and in particular Mill’s philosophical thinking, when they claim the advantages of their capabilities theory .The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy writes

“Following Wilhelm von Humboldt (1993 [1854]), in On Liberty Mill argues that one basis for endorsing freedom (Mill believes that there are many), is the goodness of developing individuality and cultivating capacities:

Individuality is the same thing with development, and…it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings…what more can be said of any condition of human affairs, than that it brings human beings themselves nearer to the best thing they can be? or what worse can be said of any obstruction to good, than that it prevents this? (Mill, 1963, vol. 18: 267)

This is not just a theory about politics: it is a substantive, perfectionist, moral theory about the good. And, on this view, the right thing to do is to promote development or perfection, and only a regime securing extensive liberty for each person can accomplish this”

In short, John Stuart Mill had developed the concept of a capability theory, a century before Sen and Nussbaum.

Hugh has adopted yet another anti-utility argument. He uses a thought experiment. Philosophers have a penchant for thought experiments that will never see reality. Waking to find yourself in a hospital serving as life support to a famous violinist is typical. In Hugh’s, we create a world in which there is more peace, trust, goodwill, happiness, etc. Maybe the current arguments for ‘multiverses’ or ‘quantum universes’, suggest that Hugh’s thought experiment is a possibility. But he has added the rider that to achieve this happier World Mark II, we “destroy the lives and hopes and dreams of all the world’s people”. He tells us that ‘the utilitarian answer is that of course you should ‘(make the change). But to destroy the lives of everybody on our current planet is clearly to harm them. John Stuart Mill has stated that to harm others is not maximising utility

Mill, in almost two centuries, has written the only book with the title and subject matter on utilitarianism. Many philosophers have claimed that Mill is not a Utilitarian. The claim is nonsense. We must accept Mill, and his thoughts, as that version of utility that provides the most dependable guideline. That some of the arguments put forward in this essay came from his On Liberty, Mill‟s companion work, written only two years earlier, is no counter to the claim that Mill presented the definitive version of classical utilitarianism,  It may be that Peter Singer modified  Mill in his preference utilitarianism  in his Practical Ethics (along with RM Hare)  but an examination of Singer’s version of utilitarianism  will extend the essay considerably . In the end , it will  only serve to reinforce the earlier observation that  JS Mill had already designated what peoples’ overriding preference was.

We turn finally to my tutor. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. It is unanswerable logic that the ethics of any action depend on the results of that action. But the tutor drew an example of a terrorist who threw his bomb, and missed.  He blew up a building destined for demolition, saving the city the cost.  The terrorist did no harm, so the tutor says he did no wrong. The tutor of course ignored the intended consequences of the terrorist – to kill. Numerous examples can be cited of as intended consequences being unethical - or even illegal – wrongs, using almost any ethical guideline.

One does wonder why these arguments arise. The recently introduced ethics classes in NSW schools have a session on argument:

This topic introduces students to the most fundamental tool of logical (and hence ethical) reasoning, viz. the philosophical one of argument.

The schools are endorsing long established practices, including those of well-known philosophers.

It does look as though we will be producing ethicists who will be arguing what is right and what is wrong for another 2500 years.