degeneracy and immiseration of the species.^49 The utilitarian
appeal to history for vindication seems to reflect, by contrast, a
belief, if not in providence, then in the progress of mankind
towards the best possible condition.
One thing is for sure – the utilitarian has not done the work his
quasi-science suggests should be undertaken if he is content to
make the sort of grand gestures towards history we have seen in
Hume and Mill. Furthermore, the critic will not be surprised at
this omission. How could this work be accomplished? What sort of
facts do we have available for a genuine contrast of government
and anarchy, liberty and authoritarianism, private and common
property, societies with promises and societies without them?
Experiments are impossible and historical episodes are too clut-
tered with the particularities of time and place to permit ready
generalization.
Utilitarianism on the grand scale might therefore seem an exer-
cise in rationalization or wishful thinking, depending on whether
its focus is on the present collection of rules and institutions or on
future alternatives. But perhaps utilitarianism works successfully
when its focus is narrowed to the judgements of specific acts or
policy proposals. Again, I have my doubts. The most ambitious
attempts to quantify outcomes are the work of welfare economists,
and it is fair to say that this work has not been widely persuasive. I
remember listening to E.J. Mishan describing the work of the
Roskill Commission. Their task was to find the optimal site for a
third London airport and different sites had advantages and dis-
advantages which required evaluation and comparison. The whole
audience was doubled up with laughter as Mishan listed the fac-
tors the Commission had solemnly taken account of. These
included prospective damage to the black-bellied race of Brent
Geese who migrate each winter to feeding-grounds at Foulness on
the Essex coast, the destruction of medieval churches in Hertford-
shire and the provision of non-seasonal employment for citizens of
Southend-on-Sea who were overly reliant on summer migrants
from the East End of London.
Of course, the cost–benefit analyst does not suppose that there is
an easily identifiable common denominator which will permit a
ranking of alternative policies. Radically different goods such as
those I have mentioned are assessed in terms of the preferences
UTILITARIANISM