It is the British who invented utilitarianism. It is the British who have invented empiricism. Both post-reformist philosophies actually follow on from each other. It was empiricism that first came up with the suggestion that what exists is that only perceived by the senses. What we do not feel, hear or see after all might not exist at all! David Hume had a field day. We can only be sure of what falls under our senses. The concept of the moral object was lost during the reformation. Following on this, once the moral object was out, utility and its greatest happiness for the greatest numbers and that the end justified the means, was only a short step away. Bentham and Mill now had a field day too! Utilitarianism also, in a way, depended on the sense of loss of the moral object.
The ‘moral object’ means that there is only one truth in life, even if there could be several sides to the same truth, and that having identified that truth, one tries to measure up to it. Utilitarianism simply states that there are many truths and we ourselves are the sole determinants to that truth! The moral object was thrown out and we subjects became the determinants of our own subjectivism! All post-utilitarian philosophies fared no better in that they never returned to the moral object but increasingly relied on subjectivism and relativism until today a society is being built based on the worst type of relativism and subjectivism possible. In the epitome of all this, with existentialism, it is every man for himself and every woman for herself, and the relationality to the moral object – and therefore to our common humanity – has been lost.
Today, unfortunately, most of the world is seen through the media and therefore through the Anglo-Saxon culture and language and this utilitarian and post utilitarian philosophy seems to pervade the very same media created by the Anglo-Saxon culture itself. Even those cultures which do not have the same background as the Anglo-Saxon world are now affected by it and by its own philosophy in a way. Some people do not even realise the effect of media and culture on their way of thinking.
Why do I write all this? We all have to be careful here in many ways: not only in the way we absorb information from the media without questioning it, but also in associating with events going on in Britain at the present time. David Cameron has misguidedly called for a referendum on whether or not the British people want to remain in the EU, because a section of his Conservative Party, which is very eurosceptic in outlook, is clamouring for his head in a way, if he does not do something against the EU. Although the Liberal Democrat and Labour Parties are not against EU membership, they may now not want to appear to oppose a referendum on the issue.
In order to placate these Eurosceptics, Cameron has pledged to call this referendum in 2017 as part of his election platform. There could be other reasons for this too. Britain is not at the present doing too well economically and a sort of National diversion could tidily keep people’s minds off the economy. Britain’s euroscepticism has its roots in many factors. Its past colonial history is still relatively recent and some may clamour for past glorious days when Britannia ruled the waves. However, it is also likely that this feeling has often been fuelled by several British governments in that they conveniently tended to blame national calamities on the EU scapegoat, when the EU actually had nothing to do with issues that were totally national in cause and aetiology. Many British governments found the EU a good expedient partner for bashing and passing on the buck.
In addition, Britain’s philosophical development is not similar to continental Europe’s where recognition of the moral object always remained extant in philosophy. In fact, Immanuel Kant himself opposed David Hume’s empiricist concept immediately – even though he too was a member of the reformed church and here we can see the different ways the reformed churches evolved. Kant was adamantly not a relativist and he believed in a categorical imperative knowable to man through reason. This was similar in a way to the view of Thomas Aquinas, but for different reasons.
The reality is that continental Europe’s core philosophy, which gave rise eventually to the EU, is essentially different to the core philosophy that formed the British mentes during the post-reformation period. Continental Europe’s concepts of solidarity, subsidiarity and relationality are not exactly in line with those of Britain. There are, however, many other concepts – such as those of democracy, justice and liberty – which are: there are many things in common! This diversity is also seen in the British banking system which is often after short quick profits and does not offer investors the security and long-term support offered by continental banks. This could also be part of Britain’s perceived problem as the EU talks of more control over the banking sector which caused the last economic downturn and Britain may want to hang on to the liberties of its City. Observe Britain’s resistance to the euro! The point remains, however, that if this issue is not checked quickly the situation could easily get out of hand and Britain might end up leaving the EU willy-nilly with the main parties, in fact, opposing this outcome and with dire consequences for everyone but especially the British people themselves.
It was interesting to observe last week that US President Barack Obama very diplomatically drew Cameron’s attention to all this above-mentioned potential scenario regarding British-EU relations. The USA now has an important trade agreement with the EU and Britain might very well find itself outside this agreement through its unwise policies. Although the US was traditionally an Anglo-Saxon country in the past, with Calvinist core values very similar to Britain’s, its consistent pro-migrant melting pot policy has today enriched its culture to the point that it is not philosophically what it was two hundred years ago, and the concept of moral object is much stronger in the US today than it was in the past and than it is in Britain today.
When I was PN International Secretary in 1996, and the PN was already negotiating Malta’s entry into the EU, I was often abroad lobbying for this outcome. At one time, I was lobbying in the European Parliament when the Conservative Party was still a member of the EPP-ED group (today it no longer is). Although many British Conservatives were supportive of Malta’s EU bid, a sizable number were very eurosceptic. At one point, a smaller group of these members drew me aside and told me in no uncertain terms that they thought that the EU itself was a bad idea and that they would very much be doing us all a very great national favour by voting against our EU membership bid. At which point I politely retorted that, since 1964, we Maltese people had been perfectly capable of seeking out our own national interests, thank you very much.
The EU has to be very careful here in not watering down any of its achievements because of single member states that look at short term gain. There is strength in relational unity and we should not lose sight of that particular moral object! The current economic and political problems can only be satisfactorily resolved through unity and solidarity – not through fragmentation and utilitarian short-term fixes.
I cannot tell the British how to resolve their own internal problems, of course, but I could – if they so wish – advise them to tread very carefully on this EU referendum issue!
Michael Asciak MD M.Phil PhD
[email protected]