Jump to comment:

• A calculus vs a developing guideline
  Peter H.M. Brooks
  Published on: 26 January 2016

• Published on: 26 January 2016

  A calculus vs a developing guideline

  • Peter H.M. Brooks, Governance Consultant

  Bentham's hedonic, or felicific, calculus doesn't work, in practice, either, so the criticism of a calculus being difficult or not absolute applies equally to utilitarianism.

  The hedonic calculus allows conclusions with no benefit, or negative benefit, or positive pain for some. If the net calculation is positive for all, then the negative consequences for one or more individuals is subsumed by the greater good...

  Show More

  Bentham's hedonic, or felicific, calculus doesn't work, in practice, either, so the criticism of a calculus being difficult or not absolute applies equally to utilitarianism.

  The hedonic calculus allows conclusions with no benefit, or negative benefit, or positive pain for some. If the net calculation is positive for all, then the negative consequences for one or more individuals is subsumed by the greater good and, essentially, ignored. Worse, you can, in theory, have a negative consequence for one individual, such as torture, that seems acceptable because of the overall positive result.

  With transactional audit, every individual has an absolute requirement for some quantum of dignity.

  If the dignity of any one person is to be compromised, to maximise dignity, that is explicit in the calculation.

  A decision to act against the dignity of one or more, is then the least bad option - rather than, with utilitarianism, an the optimal decision.

  I think this is an important step forwards, ethically. As the article puts it: 'The starting point is that everyone's dignity counts. Everyone is a stakeholder in every transaction.'. Even after the decision, the importance of individual dignity remains.

  Wouldn't next step be, similar to law, to try to establish precedents? To invite the registration of specific decisions that used transactional analysis, so that they can be referred to, eventually, as a body of knowledge, a guide for future decisions?

  Abstract worked examples, or even concrete examples worked by one person, are less likely to be complete, satisfactory, and widely considerate of all stakeholders, and their dignity, than a recorded history of decisions made in similar circumstances, and building on precedent.

  Having a collection of such decisions as a benchmark would also make matters much easier, and, one hopes, fairer, when the time available decide is too short to carry out a full audit.

  The only specific problem I see, with the maximisation of dignity as an objective, is much the same as for utilitarianism. If 100 stakeholders are distant enough for their dignity to be impacted by 1/100th, then they have the equivalent stake in dignity as the patient. Fair enough, but, if you consider 20 million people, they only need a very tiny stake indeed to counter the interests of the patient.

  This seems wrong. Some cut-off distance, for stakeholders not in close proximity to the patient, seems necessary to mitigate the potential tyranny of the majority.

  Conflict of Interest:

  None declared

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top