And that's my firm belief. Except when it's not.

Interesting reference today in Chris Selley's Full Pundit on the National Post website, about being 'ideological'.  (Note: I recommend reading this round-up and critique of punditry every day - it's the wittiest, snarkiest thing going.  You don't have to agree with him, but enjoy the writing and the ruthlessness.  And references to "The Simpsons".)  [To see Andrew Coyne's Maclean's piece that started the discussion click here.]

The real fun began in the Comments section, where one reader suggested that utilitarianism isn't an ideology.  Really?

Well, if we're going to have an intelligent discussion about this, we'd better start with what we mean by ideology (or at least, what I mean, and it's my blog, so that's what we'll be using).  Rather than cling to a literal, limiting dictionary definition, I'm going to use the term to mean "an over-arching, foundational worldview that informs an adherent's opinions and decisions most of the time".  I might, for example, maintain that in matters of government, less is better than more.  That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't occasions when I readily agree that some government is not only required, but preferable.  To my mind, any worldview that doesn't have some wiggle room some of the time is not ideology, but dogma.

Ok, so what about utilitarianism?  If by that term, we mean, the philosophy espoused by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, whereby decisions are made based on the outcome that will produce "the most pleasure (happiness) for the greatest number", then we are, clearly, talking about an ideology.  I would guess, since the writer of the comment on the NP website didn't provide a fuller explanation, that he or she imagines that utilitarianism isn't ideological because it's objective.

Of course, it's nothing of the sort.  What are the criteria to determine the greatest happiness for the greatest number? Which greatest number - everyone on the planet?  In your country?  In your political party? And who decides?  There's a lot of subjectivity involved - doubtless some assumptions on the part of the decider about what those criteria are, and what best fulfills them, and that, to me equals subjectivity.  As rational as utilitarianism wants to be, it isn't scientific.

There are, as well, undoubtedly circumstances where the utilitarian principle would lead to outcomes that have unpleasant consequences.  (I could probably construct a scenario where the United States' "correct" utilitarian response to Hitler would have been to do nothing.  Doesn't mean it would have been the right thing to do.)  And what if "the greatest good for the greatest number" means something really, horribly bad for a few?

So, does utilitarianism meet the standard as "an over-arching, foundational worldview that informs an adherent's opinions and decisions most of the time"?  Seems to me it does.

Now, it's possible that what the commenter really meant is what's commonly called "pragmatism" - doing 'what makes the most sense' in each circumstance.  But again, one man's pragmatism is another man's heartlessness.  Or avarice.  Or fundamentalism.  Pragmatism labours under the burden of subjectivity, too.

Anyway, at the end of the day ideologies (not dogmas) are useful.  They help us identify those with whom we share common cause, and also those who hold very different views.  And let's not forget, you don't simply pick an ideology at random, and then blindly conform to it - you align to a set of ideas that most closely match the views, philosophies, and ideals you've already figured out for yourself.

And then you grant yourself the freedom to change your mind.