2 ms·
Why would I have to be a utilitarian to make that claim? > because the Savage was the only discontent. That's not accurate. Bernard was discontent as well. In
by antisthenes 6y ago
Why would I have to be a utilitarian to make that claim?
> because the Savage was the only discontent.
That's not accurate. Bernard was discontent as well. In fact a good chunk of the book is describing his discontent and inability to fit in, despite his status.
On top of that, he eventually goes to an island full of such discontent and intellectually curious spersons.
However, limited discontent does not equal dystopia, or a lack of utopia. People can be discontent in a utopia as long as it is stable (which it seems to be in BNW).
- 082349872349872 6y agoBecause utilitarians believe that topia-ness is proportional to some measure of average (whether mean, median, or modal, BNW is a happy society) contentment. You can make that claim without being a utilitarian, but I don't think one can be a utilitarian without making that claim. (unless one gets into "no true utility" :-) Bernard was discontent, but he was content when he could exploit the Savage, and he'll be very content on the island (and his discontentment was merely that, he was never suicidal). Mond would also rather be on an island (a place that sounds reminiscent of Dante's first circle) with all the cool people, if it weren't for his (programmed?) sense of duty. I don't get the sense that discontent too-individualistic people remain discontent once they are allowed to go to the islands. (In Huxley's england, I believe people who either wished or were forced to avoid the bottles of their copy-book upbringing became "remittance men" and women, some of whom wound up on literal islands.)