Hard Times and Utilitarianism Essay

NOW, what I want is, Facts, and so starts Charles monster novel Hard times which first appeared as a serial publication in 1854. dickens regularly took inspiration from the prevailing conditions as topics of his writings and proceeds to gather social commentaries through his brand of creative fiction. Examples of these are O get goingr Twist ( hellion, 1837) and thoroughgoing(a) House (Dickens, 1952). Hard Times was similarly inspired. The novel is mainly a critic of Utilitarianism, the dominant philosophy at the time the novel was written.As Ge manglerey Scarre (1996) stated in his tidings authorise Utilitarianism, The eighteenth century was the young youth of utilitarianism, as the nineteenth was its prime (p. 49). The term utilitarianism was first coined by Jeremy Bentham in 1781 (Bailey, 1997, p. 3). His ideas were much derided stock-still then and at the House of parking area at that when Lord Brougham dismissing Bentham as, having dealt more(prenominal)(prenominal) w ith books than with men (Mack, 1963, p. 2).Yet, despite his seeming distinction the Poor Law Am close mintment Act of 1834 was passed which defined and classified the poor and depict how should be hand take. The Act was and is seen as more or slight 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 philosophy with Hard Times. enchantment personifying the basic tenets of utilitarianism in his book, he is, on the other hand, equally denounce it in the same breath.This is already evident as you read the arcsecond paragraph where he strips his purported hero of details of whatever semblance of respect when he describes the character that is Thomas Gradgrind rather 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, 2007, p. 10). This is a deliberate gambit to set an image in the readers mind which can effectively cloud anything the character pull up s hears expound upon even if it whitethorn lean towards the rational and acceptable.Dickens use of various figures of speech is overly ironic as it runs contrary to the basic tenets his character is espousing. This form of sarcasm can be seen all throughout 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 close to utilitarianism that Dickens seems to be vehemently op be to? Several of its principles were taken up in the book. Dickens took a one-sided climb up and presented it on an extreme scale and argued against it.We will look for how these were countered by Dickens by using excerpts from the book. In Benthams (1996) An cornerstone to the Principles of Morals and Legislation he declared that An action then whitethorn be said to be conformable to the principle of utility . . . when the aim it has to augment the happiness of the community is strikinger than any it has to diminish 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 heavily on human race interest which so, from the perspective of the humane, such reasoning would not be justified at all. A question on prosperity was posed to girl number 20 to which she replied I sentiment 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 money, and whether any of it was mine. barely that had nothing to do with it. (Dickens, 2007, p. 82)With this illustration, it is maintained that the individual good should not be relegated to any mathematical computations. The point was elevate driven home with the succeeding(a) example. And he said, This schoolroom is an immense town, and in it there are a million of inhabitants, and totally five-and-twenty are starved to death in the streets, in the course of a year. What is your remark on that proportion? And my remark was for I couldnt rally of a better one that I thought it essential 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 benefit as we are more than continent data and statistics. This, however, is not the geek 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 naturalized early on that following the tenets of fact can not fit to anything fanciful, it is not surprising that Coketown was depicted to be very spartan and has kept up(p) only what was severely workful (Dickens, 2007, p. 37). It is an industrial town that is generally void of rakish entertainment and distractions if one can see through the smoke with the stuff plant as the main source of income and employment for the Hands, a rather curt label to its workers as if there are no sustainment 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 farther belies its effectivity on a community that lives to live and not just survive. Within the town, there is the school run by schoolmasters who share Gradgrinds methods and beliefs. It c an be gathered that they have great memorization skills and would most likely be able to rattle off any observable characteristics of any person, place or thing.The teaching is so rigid that there is simply no place for any branch of creativity. There is just black and white. Murdering the Innocents indeed as the chapter is aptly called. That in itself plainly 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 pass onn, If he had only learnt a little less, how infinitely better he force have taught much more (Dickens, 2007, p. 18).Another argument against utilitarianism is its apparent oppose 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 prepared 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 spill the beans 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 take off the disparity. Instead, he maintains and continues to attempt 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 render anybody help without purchase.Gratitude was to be abolished, and the virtues springing from it were not to be. Every atomic nu mber 49 of the existence of mankind, from birth to death, was to be a bargain across a counter. And if we didnt get to Heaven that way, it was not a politico-economical place, and we had no note there. (Dickens, 2007, p. 375) Dickens demonstrates here that the greater good is subject to a mint 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 administration 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 reflexion of ones invigoration even at something as mundane as papering your walls or carpeting your floors. Do not do anything that is contrary to reality. There is no form merely function. What is all the more alarming is that Gradgrind was afterwards do a Member of Parliament, one of the representatives of the coevals 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 chase and influence policies.Therefore, Dickens continues with more events and inevitable results and consequences in his book to tread any other doubt remaining as regards unyielding trammel to facts. integrity 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 visionary Roy Horn in spite of it being with them for several years without any incident. More so with people whose thinking processes are more complex. One cannot take a ge neral rule and expect that all will react and comply with it unvaryingly.Current studies have now shown that all typefaces of temperament are fundamentally unique and idiosyncratic to each individual (Deary, 2003, p. 6). disrespect 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 true nature and would inevitably fight covert one way or the other. With these, let us now take a look at gobbler, the whelp and Louisa. Tom and Louisa first made their appearance in the book in Chapter III aptly entitled The Loop repair.The eminently practical father was b geting in his conviction that his children were the models of factual raising 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 look at each other with incredulous expressions on their faces. It was bound to supervene that childrens innate curiosity will get the better of them and explore realms outside their scope. The rule of thumb is when met with rules, immediately find ways 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 wonder 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 analytical reason that it is e not concrete. It is not based on the real. It has no parts that can be broken down and studied. It cannot be calculated. Utilitarianism hinders that aspect that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom 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 child ren 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 weapons system of vice. No productive outlet or substitute was provided for his suppressed emotions and was therefore easily addicted and resorted to get-rich quick schemes.Louisa, on the other hand, had no prime(prenominal) but to give in to expectations of her and that is to get married which led to the further repression of her emotions. Questions on social issues can be gleaned from the discussion of marriage surrounded by Gradgrind and his daughter where Gradgrind, typical of a man and worse, a man blind by facts and practicality could not read between the lines as he itemizes the pros and the cons of the plan 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 marri ages?Should it be for practical purposes or tests of compatibility? If neither is no longer present, should one cut ties altogether? Anyway, as Gradgrind continues to be practical, his daughter laments as she is about to enter into next bod of adulthood when she has yet to experience puerility. 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 careful 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 quite move by his success, and by this testimony to it (Dickens, 2007, p. 138) only to listen and break down and do some soul-searching himself when Louisa has finally allowed herself several years later to break free from her suppression and made her father understood the visitation in her heart and the consequences it will ultimately bring.Another hapless dupe 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 candid 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 intact having had a solid upbringing in an atmosphere of discipline, fun and love. On impulse and on love, she was able to responsibility the wr ongs. 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 opening 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 eyeball because she had enough compassion to carry the whole town. Then there were the carnival 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 sympathy 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 humanity led fulfilling lives. Gradgrind himself has discovered that aside from the wisdom of the Head. . . there is the wi sdom of the Heart (Dickens, 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 traffic with your fellow men and when dealing with life.