Utilitarianism is one of the most popular and widely known political philosophies of the 18th century. Act-Based Utilitarianism, its subset came to the forefront with the works of J. J. C. Smart and Richard B Brandt and sets the philosophy on the consequences of certain actions in determining their degree of right or wrong. In this project we will analyse the faults of this philosophy, the activities done by the People’s Republic of China analysed in line with the philosophy, the possible recommendations and a more nuanced philosophy.

Introduction

Utilitarianism is a political philosophy that emerged during the classical Greek era but was popularised through the works of Jeremy Bentham and J S Mill. The philosophy speaks about how individuals must function in a way that provides maximum benefit for most members of society. Utilitarianism bases the authority of governance, the legitimacy of a state and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, thus providing an alternative to theories of natural law, natural rights, or social contract theory.

Act-Based Utilitarianism is a specific branch of Utilitarianism that focuses on the consequences of certain actions. As per this philosophical branch, an action is justified so long as the ends or consequences of that action end in better societal welfare.[1] The role of morality and moral or ethical codes are often set aside in the pursuit of Act-Based Utilitarianism.

The Chinese Communist Party rose to power in China following their victory against the Nationalist Kuomintang Forces under Chiang Kai-shek. In the aftermath of the CCP in the Liaoshen, Huaihai and Pingjin campaigns, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People’s Republic of China in October 1949. By the early 1950s, the CCP remained the sole political power in mainland china. Following this, the CCP surreptitiously began entrenching itself within every Chinese cultural, political, social and economic sphere.

Statement of Problem

Act-Based Utilitarianism has set itself as a philosophy with a plethora of defects which are being utilised by the Chinese state. The Chinese state is not only misconstruing the philosophy, it's not even being fully incorporated at all into the system. In this work, we will first analyse the idea of Act-Based Utilitarianism. We will then look into the various aspects of this philosophy including its major concerns. Following which we will look into the Chinese state and its atrocities it commits in this context of Act-Based Utilitarianism.

Research Questions

What is Act-Based Utilitarianism?
What are the defects of Act-Based Utilitarianism?
Does the Greater Happiness Principle and the philosophy of Act-Based Utilitarianism justify the activities of the Chinese Communist Party?
Could the philosophy of Act-Based Utilitarianism guarantee long term sustainability of the PRC?
Is there any steps to take that can appropriately allow the implementation of Act-Based Utilitarianism in China?
Is there a possible reinterpretation of Act-Based Utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a political philosophy that emerged during the classical Greek era but was popularised through the works of Jeremy Bentham and J S Mill. The philosophy speaks about how individuals and by extension a state must function in a way that provides maximum benefit for most members of society.[2] Utilitarianism bases the authority of governance, the legitimacy of a state and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, thus providing an alternative to theories of natural law, natural rights, or social contract theory.

The fundamental idea behind utilitarianism is that the consequences of actions must have an end that benefits the greater well being of society.[3] While utilitarianism might provide a diverse array of reasoning and theoretical and philosophical differences among themselves when it comes to the idea of utilitarianism, this fundamental notion remains the same. What usually differs is how these different utilitarian philosophers go about to achieve this common good ideal. One important factor is that Bentham and classic utilitarianism believe that the sovereign power or sovereign authority is the source of all law in the nation.[4]

Under utilitarianism, an action does not need to be relatively good in itself so long as the act in question does lead to a position of better value addition of intrinsic good end result. Bentham and Mill believed that the balance of happiness over pain is a simple measure to study the relative question of whether an action ought to be done the way it is so.[5] Utilitarians following Bentham would improve this duality of choices and expand the idea that it does not necessarily have to be a choice of the option of pleasure over pain but also the choice of better happiness over lesser happiness. Mill went a step further and stated that actions need not necessarily create or bring about happiness but rather they are even moral and permissible provided that they cause an absence of pain.[6] The fact that there can be two or more right choices but the end point is determined to be the benefit that society receives over the same.[7]

The core question of whether an act is to be done or not is fundamentally based not on what it was once perceived as but rather what it could lead to. This following quote effectively sums up the approach of Utilitarianism

“The guide for correct action in politics (in law) does not come from the effort to honour the past, but rather to build an honourable future”[8]

Act Based Utilitarianism

As per J. J. C. Smart, Act-Based Utilitarianism is a specific branch of Utilitarianism that focuses on the consequences of certain actions in a society wherein an action is justified if it produces the most benefit and overall better result as its consequence.[9] While Smart based his ideas of Utilitarianism upon the altar of how a society must function in taking decisions, Richard B Brandt took a more personalised note of the same. In his view, the duty of a person is to conduct in a certain manner or do an action that will produce some intrinsic worth or benefit to a state of conscious beings.[10] While their approach might differ slightly, their combined ideals became the blueprint of what most consider to be Act-Based Utilitarianism which sees itself as a successor to the Bentham model of Classic Utilitarianism.

Act-Based Utilitarianism is essentially a philosophy utilised for decision making. The fundamental idea is to provide a picture where one can make a choice regarding not just their own happiness but rather for the entire society as a whole considering the individual happiness or pain.[11] This is because while rule based utilitarianism provides an ambit of action based around the morality of any act done so within the ambit act based utilitarianism provides a consequences only approach thereby making whatever the benefiting action as moral. The philosophy is designed to provide a plethora of options to the decision maker so that he maye choose that has the least adverse consequences.[12]

Consequences here under Act-Based Utilitarianism can be both long term and short term. Actions taken by individuals must take both into account and decide on their actions. On an objective level, this particular brand of utilitarianism attempts to differentiate these actions on what is right and what is rational in determining consequences.[13] Rational is any such activity which any individual perceives to be the most ‘reasonable’ activity and what one will intentionally consider to be right while the right action per se is the one that produces the best overall benefit for the general public in question.[14] Since the philosophy is built on the ‘objective’ ideal of maximising the benefit of society, the ‘right’ action is always one that needs to be undertaken.

Act-Based Utilitarianism in many ways promotes conformity and compliance towards state and authority institutions as it is the best thing to do. Conforming with one's colleagues, friends and family in accepting the sovereign and the law set by the authority helps in promoting the overall well being of society in general over the period of time since it stops anarchy.[15] The argument here is that following rules is not out of a moral obligation towards a state but rather the alternative of not following the law would result in anarchy and cause more harm to the society as a whole.[16]

The work, A Note on Act Utilitarianism, J. J. C. Smart clearly demarcates the limit and the conduct prescribed under Act-Based Utilitarianism. In this case,

The judgement on any activity which is undertaken must be upon the consequences of that said action.
The only reason for doing an act rather than its alternative is so that the choice will place humanity at a better level of content and more happy.[17]

The idea of Act-Based Utilitarianism is to reject the rule based version of Utilitarianism as well as the deontological ethics of rule worship. Instead it is following a philosophy of not adhering towards any moral conundrum but merely assessing an action based on its inherent benefit to society.[18]

Greater Happiness Principle

The Greater Happiness Principle is one of the core principles in Utilitarianism which holds that the determinant of what is moral or not is decided upon the level of happiness for most members of the society that can be derived from the said activity.[19] In fact, J S Mill was quoted saying as follows regarding the Greater Happiness Principle,

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.”[20]

Here the principle elucidates not about a general criteria of ‘happiness’ but rather the benefit the action does to the maximum number of people. The logic of greater happiness does not necessarily have to mean betterment of the individuals in the society but it can also refer to the situation of harm itself being removed upon the commission of that said action. This principle is a core conditional factor upon classical utilitarianism and to an extent Act-Based Utilitarianism. This is because in both instances, the action is judged upon its consequences to the general public upon its commission.[21]

Question of Revolution in Act-Based Utilitarianism

Under Utilitarianism, the primary question is not that of revolution per se but rather the cost benefit analysis behind each and every action. The justification to follow any law is measured by its legitimacy. Under Act-Based Utilitarianism that particular legitimacy is further assessed upon the altar of its societal benefit. To elucidate further, let us showcase a test. This test was from the article Act-Utilitarianism and Collective Action,

“A dictator has taken over a country by force from the elected government. He sets up an efficient secret police, murders all who oppose him, and proceeds to exploit and oppress the citizens, whose life becomes very much worse.”[22]

The example asks, ‘When should he be overthrown?’

The article Act-Utilitarianism and Collective Action argues that if the overthrow of the dictator would produce better benefit for the public than his continuation, the revolution is the possible choice. However the test here has made certain other factors clear as well. If the dictator is efficient, his secret service police are well maintained and he has in fact, while taking away the political rights of the people, have granted them better economic benefits which better their individual lives, then revolution becomes more of an individual perspective. If the cost of revolution individually or collectively is worse than the current situation, then acquiescence towards the tyrant is better. The article argues that if the removal will lead to a worse situation, then his removal is not conducive.

Concerns with Act-Based Utilitarianism

As we have seen, Act-Based Utilitarianism has created a system whereby the ends justify the means.

Problem of Alternative Choices

The main drawback is how alternatives are considered in the problems faced. As per the article On the Problem of Formulating a Coherent Act-Utilitarianism, the context of how alternatives are construed is wrong. [23] The very fact that alternatives are available showcases the issues of choice. How can any choice which decides on one alternative prescribe how the other is adverse. Act-Based Utilitarianism is founded on the principle that the best choice is the one which provides long term or short term benefits to society. The question then emerges as to how one can understand the long term effects of any choice at the present. This presents a situation where the choices are construed in one way that whichever the route taken, the state can always justify that it was done with the long term benefit in mind as an intention. This opens the avenue for states or societies to function in ways detrimental towards the individuals living in them.

Problem of Determinables

The second objection is rather similar to the former. Most actions done by a person or state are done as a part of a long series of decisions taken.[24] The decision to drive a car is done as a part of the decision to work or as a part of the decision to go from point A to point B. All this provides a chance that there is more than one determinant involved.

For instance, in the previous example, suppose official X wishes to go to work. He works in a government office as an official and is a workaholic who loves to help people. Him going to work is the beneficial choice taken as him going to work will benefit the civilians and citizens who come to him seeking his help. Thus him making the action to do his work is beneficial to the larger society. However in this instance, imagine it requiring him to drive a car from his house to work which is around 45 mins away. Due to his work, he is able to afford a vehicle but the issue is that it pollutes. The decision of him driving to work might allow him to reach faster and thus help more people but it will also lead to him using the car and harming those pedestrians on the way with air and noise pollution.

Conversely, suppose a state wishes to impose fast track courts which deal with all criminal cases within just one month and at the same time gives them the highest punishment possible. The punishments are carried out at the end of the month. The latter would surely be a difference in crime and the former will give people faith in the justice system. However in this instance, suppose a man, Y, is arrested, found as a suspect in a murder and within a week is sentenced to death. He is hanged as per schedule at the end of the month and society moves on. Prima facie law and order is maintained and the action helps deter crime thus providing a safer society which is in the benefit of most people. However suppose evidence comes in the 2nd month of his innocence. Would that destroy the faith of the society in its judicial system? Surely the fate that befell Y can happen to anyone else as well. This can lead to loss of faith in the judiciary, protests, populism, rebellion, revolution and even anarchy. Now ask oneself if the decision of these fast track courts is truly the solution. Is the act of trying and dealing with cases faster just being assessed on that facet alone? Or are there not more determinables to consider?

Act-Based utilitarianism, while prima facie reasonable in providing an easy answer of right and wrong, fails to realise that most activities and choices of people are never individual or stand alone but rather a part of a series of such similar choices.[25] The issue is that we cannot assess the legitimacy of one choice based on it alone. The other determinables have to be assed. There is no concrete plan on the side of Utilitarians to provide this assessment of choices.

Problem of Pleasure.

This is the fundamental issue with Act-Based Utilitarianism. How can any one individual or group of individuals decide what is pleasure or happiness in the context of a state?[26] While Mill might provide a qualitative criteria towards it, no state or individual has ever properly determined what is pleasure in its strict sense.[27] They have given additional criterias to consider or provide a degree of reference but a direct definition has not been done. This provides an open check for authoritarian states to themselves arbitrarily decide what is beneficial or otherwise for their own individual societies. In such a scenario, one can blame that the lack of a proper definition for Utilitarianism is the key element in why it is being misinterpreted by states, individuals and societies around the world.

People’s Republic of China

The Chinese Communist Party or the CCP/CPC was formed in the year 1921 by revolutionaries such as Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu who were inspired by the ideals of Marxism and the success of the Bolsheviks in Russia.[28] While initially aligned with the National People’s Party (Kuomintang) or Nationalists of Sun Yat Sen, later Chiang Kai-shek, the two parties had fallen out which resulted in the near extermination of the Communists by the Nationalists.[29] This led to the famous Long March of Mao Zedong. Hostilities between the two factions ended in the aftermath of the Japanese invasion when they came together to form a united front against the invading Nipponese forces.

Tensions continued after the fall of the Empire of Japan in 1945 and War began in earnest once again in 1946.[30] This second phase of the civil war concluded with the victory of the Communists in 1949. Their victory was partly due to the fact that the Kuomintang Nationalists were instrumental in holding back the Japanese forces and had been severely depleted in the Second World War.[31] Following a string of dramatic military victories and with the Red Army in control of Beijing, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People’s Republic of China on the 1st of October, 2022 with himself as its Chairman and Supreme Leader.

Over the course of its long dictatorships, many ideological struggles were undertaken to stratify and solidify the hold of the party over the nation and its people. The best example of such measures was the Cultural Revolution of 1966-76. The movement was a national socio-political movement declared by Mao to ‘purge’ capitalist and traditionalist elements in the party and the nation. While this was the official stand of the CCP, the reality is that this was done to extinguish any potential rival to the Supreme Leader and his tumultuous vision for China.[32] the next great challenge to the party’s grip on power during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 exacerbated by the Dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Eastern Bloc. These events triggered an existential crisis within the Chinese Communist Party which forced them to institute party reformation and reorganisation so that they would avoid the fate that met Russia and the other communist states of Eastern Europe. As per David Shambaugh, the party decided that it should shift away from a dogmatic ideology and entrenched elites which would lead to a stagnant economy.[33] While there were even calls for inter-party reorganisation through decentralisation and the ossified party structure, it was never implemented and the dominant nature of the party was never challenged.

Today, the Communist Party of China is the second largest political organisation in the world after the Bharatiya Janata Party of India with around 97 million members.[34] The party is a monolith institution that finds its presence and control in every aspect of Chinese life, from government, military, bureaucracy and society. It not only controls the legislature, executive and judiciary but also all the aspects of Chinese culture, institutions relating to art, science and military.[35] The party is effectively the state.

Act-Based Utilitarianism and the

People’s Republic of China

China had been for decades under Mao Zedong, a socialist hell. There was forced collectivisation, rampant abuse of state power, a reign of terror and so on. Deng Xiapoing succeeded Mao in the late 1970s, he instituted a new regime of economic reform from the socialist model. China began shifting into an era of utilitarianism during this time. Deng being obsessed with economic growth pushed the nation in such a manner that more or less individual liberty was curtailed in the interest of national benefit.[36] Effectively he led the nation in such a manner that so long as the action in question benefits the nation, it is acceptable.[37] This is direct Act-Based Utilitarianism. Here we will analyse whether this justification that China functions as a Utilitarian state holds any value.

Preliminary Analysis on the possible justification of People’s Republic of China through Act-Based Utilitarianism

The Chinese Communist Party emerged out of a civil war that lasted decades. While the CCP united China and provided stability to the nation, its oppressive policies were instrumental in causing the deaths of tens of millions.[38] The system did not improve and the socio economic situation deteriorated further in the aftermath of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

The rise of Xi Jinping has exacerbated the already faltering delicate balance of Act-Based Utilitarian justification. Xi Jinping has instituted a total overhaul of the Chinese state. He has initiated purges of his political rivals through an ‘Anti Corruption Drive’ which conveniently allowed his allies to amass vast wealth.[39] In fact the central leadership under Xi has actually amassed further power in the aftermath of these purges leaving him firmly in charge of the state.

This centralisation however comes without any adequate benefit for the people other than more repressive measures. State mandated lockdowns are a terror to the common people with many officials utilising these to enforce their draconian policies. State surveillance has increased in the aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic with officials utilising personal data and social security information to monitor and control civilians.[40] State surveillance is such a high level that Amnesty International reports the Chinese government even monitors religious functions. whatsapp and social media and even the purchase of what they deem as ‘unnatural fuel and electricity.[41] Any opposition is swiftly eliminated. In fact, even freedom of expression is curtailed. Here the best example could be the fate of Citizen journalists such as Chen Qiushi who was placed under arrest for nearly 600 days without trial.[42] Former lawyer Zhang Zhan, who was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in December 2020 for reporting on the Covid-19 outbreak in the city of Wuhan earlier that year.[43] Human Rights Watch estimates that around 1.7 million people are illegally detained and another 11 million are subject to constant surveillance by the Chinese state.[44] Further data is not present due to the secretive nature of the Chinese state.

In fact one could argue that the State firewall has restricted the amount of individual freedom a civilian is allowed.[45] These result in a situation where people are not allowed to speak out or freely speak their mind. Utilitarianism, while proactively supportive of majoritarian endenvies, never spoke about the repudiation of freedom of expression. The situation is so nightmarish that even Amnesty had to close down its offices in Hong Kong due to the restrictions placed by the laws of Beijing.[46] Add the increase in propaganda and the ongoing suppression of protests, there is no proper benefit for the public.

Furthermore, the CCP and the Chinese state have also indulged in genocides. This includes forced relocation, forced sterilisation, forced detention and mass executions.[47] It had always indulged in such acts in the past but now the situation has exacerbated. CERD reports that despite government denials, there is presence of torture and arbitrary detention of all those who oppose the government in China. This extended to the people of Xinjiang and Tibet as well.[48] As per CERD, most of these detentions are without any charge and extend to an undefined period of time.[49] as per the Human Rights Watch, 400 such facilities exist today with most acting as ‘reeducation camps’, torture centres, death and concentration camps and so on.[50] Furthermore, there are even instances of racial discrimination when it comes to matters of employment for those who are non chinese.[51] Government control over all walks of life continues to persist with total regulation in fact increasing as the years go by.

Religion provides a measure to benefit the proper unity in society. Its role is to provide an outlet for people’s aspirations. In essence, one can prima facie see that every religion functions within the ambit of utilitarianism. It provides a safety net, mental and spiritual peace, an outlet for venting frustrations, a symbol of hope etc. however their forcible removal takes away this choice of peace from the people. This is what the Chinese state is doing. Preliminary reports by the OHCHR in their assessment report around 30000 religious centres being destroyed in an attempt to control and regulate people’s religious beliefs.[52] In the aftermath of the rise of Xi Jinping, Human Rights Watch reports that there had been an increasing number of violence and government action against religious leaders. This is prominent in places like Xinjiang and Tibet.[53]

All this is compounded with the fact that China is undergoing some of the worst economic situations since the time of Mao. Worsening unemployment, rising income inequality and a collapsing property market have become the norm.[54][55] The nation lags well behind in institutional assistance. As per the IMF only 17 percent of the population of China used an account to receive wages in the past 70 years and this statistic is not improving.[56] Furthermore, the Standardised World Income Inequality Database (SWIID) estimates the Net Gini coefficient for China at 50 points as of 2013, which is above various regional averages and among the highest in Asia.[57] As per the National Bureau of Statistics of the CCP, real unemployment is set to be as high as 19.5 percent in the Asian state.[58] Most estimates suggest that this is set to grow further in the future.[59]

As per the National Bureau of Statistics, Real Estate investment, the holder of one of the biggest economic bubbles in China, has declined by 7.4 percent this year alone.[60] Adding to this, commercial housing sales totalled only around 1.19 trillion dollars, down 27.9 percent, while residential sales decreased by 30.3 percent.[61] Furthermore, in October 2022, the sales by the 100 biggest real estate developers contracted 26.5 percent.[62] The real estate sector is very relevant to the survival of the Chinese state as it accounts for more than a quarter, 29 percent of the GDP of China.[63] This current political structure only exploits, suppresses, oppresses and makes the economic life of its people worse. The benefits of this state structure are not beneficial to the majority of the people. This system is crumbling and it is taking more than a billion people with it.

We must understand that the Chinese state will not be improving due to the trajectory Xi Jinping has taken the Chinese state. The acquiescence towards this Chinese state structure no longer provides any benefits to the Chinese public but rather only worsening socio-political reality with tightening rules, regulations and restrictions.

Analysis on the Drawbacks of Act-Based Utilitarianism with the People’s Republic of China

Furthermore, we have already discussed the problems of Act-Based Utilitarianism. The problems of alternative choices sets an open ground for confusion and concern as there is no possibility to truly understand the effective long term justification of a particular choice.[64] We discussed how to provide the state an avenue to decide on any choice it so wishes and then justify it by stating that the alternatives were considerably less conducive under utilitarianism. This is exactly how the Chinese state is functioning. Its decisions are all done on the basis of long term benefit for the Chinese people. However it is the state itself that decides what constitutes long term benefit for the Chinese people and thus inherently flawed.

Secondly, the question of what conditions pleasure of general well being is being misused by the Chinese state. We can see this with Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping and the 1970s-80s government policies and the 2013- policies of Xi Jinping. All these ;leaders took upon themselves to decide what is pleasure or greater benefit for the Chinese people in their own viewpoints. In these instances, what they did have is that the lack of a cohesive definition from the side of the philosophy allowed them to act in such a manner and declare their viewpoints and the Greater Good.

Greater Happiness Principle and People’s Republic of China

Under the Greater Happiness Principle, J S Mill was quoted saying,

Here the principle elucidates not about a general criteria of ‘happiness’ but rather the benefit the action does to the maximum number of people. The Chinese state provides no benefit other than financial leverage and political power to a select few within the Xi Jinping led regime. It also means that the more each citizen suffers the more the happiness will be diminished and the less justified any action would be.[66] This is exactly how the Chinese state is functioning. The state does not provide any expansion of happiness but rather continues to restrict and cause further harm to the public. Adding to this under Act-Based Utilitarianism, the only reason for doing an act rather than its alternative is so that the choice will place humanity at a better level of content and more happy.[67]

The activities of the Chinese state do not fulfil this category. Their actions have consequences that only made the station worse for their civilians. The majority of the public are not better off under this regime. The restrictive and repressive policies of the state have left millions dead under decades of purges. The Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square, the Falun Gong and the recent ‘anti corruption’ purges are some examples of this. Their surveillance policy has instituted a populace terrified of all forms of interactions and constantly speaking in adulatory tones towards a regime that can punish suspected dissent. There is no direct benefit for the public other than the 70 year old claim that the CCP ended a war and brought peace and stability. Since then the regime has cracked down on dissidents and terrorised the population into subservience.

The only beneficiaries of this system are the members of the central administration. Xi Jinping’s family is worth millions.[68] His allies have offshore accounts, control strategic institutions, amassed wealth and power and utilise the state to enrich themselves.[69][70] We can state that it is not the maximum number of people benefiting from this system but rather the slim minority that has received all the benefits. Every act of the CCP only furthered the interest of this minority. May it be the repression, the forced lockdowns or the genocides and exploitations. All these either allow this minority to amass more wealth, more power, eliminate opposition, protect their authority and provide further avenues for expansion. Its actions do not benefit the general public at all. With this we can conclude that the actions of the CCP are not justified under the Act-Based Utilitarianism model.

The Chinese Future

In the previous scenario we had concluded that the actions of the CHinese state only further the interest of a small minority and are not in favour for the betterment of the majority. Thus they do not fulfil the criteria under Utilitarianism nor justified under the Act-Based Utilitarianism model. The question is if there is an avenue to better this state and its situation.

National People’s Congress

First and foremost is increasing the power of the National People’s Congress. In theory, the National Party Congress was supposed to be the most powerful political body in the nation with around 3000 members voting on national policy and placing themselves as a check on the power of the Politburo and the General Secretary.[71] Their secondary function is to elect 200 full members and around 170 alternative members who are chosen for the Central Committee.[72]

However the former was not to be. The National Party Congress does not have the power to legislate in its true sense or to pass bills and acts. Their power is to provide proposals or recommendations which would then be scrutinised by the allotted officials.[73] Furthermore, the members of this body do not necessarily hold individual power and are restricted due to the way the state is structured. They usually vote in overwhelming margins towards all the proposals put forward by the Ministers and the General Secretary.[74] The body, while having de jure power and authority, is in fact under the de facto control of the Politburo.

The state must undertake the instituting of a democratic process of selecting members of the National People’s Congress. This would allow the legislative body to become truly representative in all manners and not just as a rubber stamp body. Democratisation is the order of the day. Democracy and democratically created laws generally tend to promote the welfare of the greatest possible number. This is because these laws are made by people who are chosen from the majority of the citizens to work for those majority.[75] This provides the betterment of the state in a direction where the inclusion of the people provides for them to direct the state in certain ways. These certain ways would lead to conducive actions that lead to consequences that better the majority of the public in the long term.

Politburo and the Central Standing Committee

Second is the dissolution of the Politburo and the Central Standing Committee. The Politburo is the most important formal institution sitting atop the power structure in China. It is headed by the General Secretary and his closest advisors and associates.[76] Officially the Politburo is the highest decision making body but in practice, the Politburo Standing Committee usually makes all the decisions. The Politburo only comes into prominence when the decisions needed to be taken are those which have wide and far reaching implications such as major policy shifts, matters of immediate urgency or the requirement for the quick legitimization of certain leaders or policies.[77]

The real source of power in the Chinese state is the Politburo Standing Committee of 7 members. This committee includes the General Secretary and 6 of his closest associates including the Premier of the Chinese state. Most of the decisions that impact the day-to -day lives of the Chinese people are made by the standing committee. This body lies at the heart of the Chinese power structure. Most of the highest level ministers are members of the Politburo Standing Committee signifying their close allegiance to the General Secretary. The power of the Standing Committee rose in the aftermath of the political reforms of Deng Xiaoping and the emergence of the idea of ‘Collective Leadership’ which sets these 7 members as the collective head of the Chinese state with near equal rank and power to all.[78]

The problem with these bodies is that they inherently function as the creation of an elite class of individuals who decide to do actions which only benefit them. This can be seen by the vast wealth amassed by the clique surrounding President Xi Jinping. The consequences of these actions do not benefit the majority but rather only this minuscule minority. Thus these bodies must be dismissed. Instead of these ‘chosen leaders’ who are appointed by the Supreme Leader on account of their loyalty, the democratised National Assembly must elect a Leader from themselves who will then choose based upon merit. In many ways we are calling for a parliamentary democracy in China.

Revolution

We must however understand that this state structure will not reform that easily. The elite minority have a vice-like grip on the state and the party. They will only act in any manner that leads to the devolution of their power. Thus they will never implement these measures. The consequences of their despotism will continue to harm the majority of the people in china.

Thus, finally, we come to the test from the article Act-Utilitarianism and Collective Action, ie, Revolution. The article implies that if the alternative to this brutal state is a worse situation for the people then revolution is not the right answer.[79] Thus an oppressive state should not be overthrown to be replaced by anarchy. For example, the revolutions across Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the communist collapse is justified as there is a direct successor waiting to take up the mantle and set up a regime, like the Solidarity Movement in Poland. This action provides the better benefit towards the majority of the people who had suffered under the tyranny of the Eastern Bloc. One can draw similar inferences to the activities in China.

The recent protests over lockdowns as well as the Pro Democracy Movement in Hong Kong in 2020 showcased the presence of a strong underground network of activists, leaders and individuals united by their desire to act in a manner that would benefit the majority of the people of China by instituting a democracy. A democracy is the better alternative when compared to a despotic regime that benefits the minuscule minority. It would provide a better chance for economic, social and political benefits to filter to the general public Thus in this situation, there is an alternative to the despotism of the CCP. Revolution can be an option to be utilised by the people against this regime and its replacement will be a conductive action fulfilling the goal of Act-Based Utilitarianism, ie, action, the revolution that is justified if it produces the most benefit and overall better result as its consequence.

Pragmatic Utilitarianism

While one can produce recommendations for the Chinese state, their implementation is another question altogether. CHina may or may not implement these recommendations. The lack of their implementation would result in the current autocracy attempting to continue its oppression and violation of human rights. The entire situation would result in what can be seen as the continuation of this regime in borrowed time until it so passes the Rubicon.

However what is more worrisome is the situation of the philosophy itself. Act-Based Utilitarianism is a specific branch of Utilitarianism that focuses on the consequences of certain actions. As per this philosophical branch, an action is justified so long as the ends or consequences of that action end in better societal welfare.[80] The role of morality and moral or ethical codes are often set aside in the pursuit of Act-Based Utilitarianism. The lack of a cohesive definition per se or a nuanced understanding only leads to ambiguity. This ambiguity further provides an avenue for those in future to utilise this philosophy and justify their excesses. Therefore it is imperative that such a nuanced definition be so created.

Act-Based Utilitarianism is by itself the philosophy that argues for the assessment of consequences of one's action as a means to retrospectively decide on its legitimacy. However while this is applicable for short term effects and long term effects, Pragmatic Utilitarianism provides the needed facets of analysis. All actions shall be judged upon the altar of their beneficial nature towards society provided they adhere towards the common principles of natural justice while at the same time providing a context for extenuating circumstances beyond natural justice.

Essentially, all actions are valid provided that they are

Beneficial in their effects towards the wellbeing of society
They adhere towards the orinciels of natural justice

This prima facie sets the philosophy in the ambit of Rule-Based Utilitarianism. However my philosophy goes a step further. This is because there is a loophole. The society is allowed to take a step that violates the principles of natural justice if the action that violates it provides for a quantitative benefit for society towards a majority of people. The time period for the result of such an action must be presentable in the five years that follows. This therefore puts a time period on how far off can any and all claims of the beneficial nature of Act-Based Utilitarianism can go. If the action taken violative of natural justice does not provide any concrete benefit for the well being of society in the next years, such an action must be deemed as unjust, illegitimate and void.

Providing such a criteria would help in providing a check on the actions of authoritarian dictatorships whose promises are usually reserved for grandiose pledges. They promise actions which they state will provide either immediate benefit or benifit in the long run. By placing this criteria, we are effectively setting a bar on the upper limit of such promises.

Furthermore, if in the meantime, an action taken with a king term benefit in mind does not materialise, there is justifiable cause for retrospective analysis of such an action, its repudiation and the imposition of liability on the actor. This retrospectivity allows some leaveway to provide accountability towards society and its leader.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the idea of Act-Based Utilitarianism has provided something of an overreach towards populism in society. In such a condition, it is imperative that one takes the time to assess the actions of all governments left or right and take them upon the standard set here. It is now well known that the CCP is a tyrannical regime unwilling to protect nor guarantee human rights and is in itself leading a failing administration. Such leaderships, similar to the leadership in Iran and North Korea are to be legitimised and relegated to the category of rogue states. While this philosophical branch of Pragmatic Utilitarianism might not solve all the issues with the philosophy in itself, it provides a proper foundation for future philosophers to build and perfect it in the coming years.

[1]Raanan Gillon “Utilitarianism” 290 British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 1411-1413 (1985)

[2]Jeremy Bentham “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” Batoche Books (1789).

[3]Raanan Gillon “Utilitarianism” 290 British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 1411-1413 (1985).

[4]Manuel Escamilla "Rights and Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill’s Role in its history" Revue d’études benthamiennes (2008).

[5]Henry R West, Utilitarianism, Encyclopedia Britannica, available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy#ref68605 (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[6]Utilitarianism available at https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/utilitarianism/section4/ (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[7]Henry R West, Utilitarianism, Encyclopedia Britannica, available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy#ref68605 (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[8]Manuel Escamilla "Rights and Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill’s Role in its history" Revue d’études benthamiennes (2008).

[9]Donald C. Emmons "Act vs. Rule-Utilitarianism" 82 Mind 226-233 (1973).

[10]B. C. Postow "Generalised Act Utilitarianism" 37 Analysis 49-52 (1977).

[11]R. Eugene Bales "Act-Utilitarianism: Account of Right-Making Characteristics or Decision-Making Procedure?" 8 American Philosophical Quarterly 257-265 (1971).

[12]Raanan Gillon “Utilitarianism” 290 British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 1411-1413 (1985).

[13]Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher "Ethics for A-Level" 9-29 (Open Book Publishers, University of Nottingham, 2017).

[14]Richard T. Garner "Some Remarks on Act Utilitarianism" 78 Mind 124-128 (1969).

[15]Donald C. Emmons "Act vs. Rule-Utilitarianism" 82 Mind 226-233 (1973).

[16]B. C. Postow "Generalised Act Utilitarianism" 37 Analysis 49-52 (1977).

[17]Charles Landesman "A Note on Act Utilitarianism" 73 The Philosophical Review 243-247 (1964).

[18]Id.

[19]Cinara Nahra, The harm principle and the greatest happiness principle: the missing link, Scientific Electronic Library Online, available at https://www.scielo.br/j/kr/a/RvnVGk7zY5CVMKVFSCdyWBy/ (last visited on November 24 2022).

[20]Cinara Nahra, The harm principle and the greatest happiness principle: the missing link, Scientific Electronic Library Online, available at https://www.scielo.br/j/kr/a/RvnVGk7zY5CVMKVFSCdyWBy/ (last visited on November 24 2022).

[21]Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher "Ethics for A-Level" 9-29 (Open Book Publishers, University of Nottingham, 2017).

[22]John Chandler, "Act-Utilitarianism and Collective Action" 84 Ethics, 78-85 (1973).

[23]Hector-Neri Castañeda, "On the Problem of Formulating a Coherent Act-Utilitarianism" 31, Analysis, 118-124 (1971).

[24]Eric Dayton, "Towards a Credible Act-Utilitarianism" 16, American Philosophical Quarterly, 61-66 (1979).

[25]Eric Dayton, "Towards a Credible Act-Utilitarianism" 16, American Philosophical Quarterly, 61-66 (1979).

[26]Richard B. Brandt, "The Real & Alleged Problems of Utilitarianism" 13, The Hastings Center Report, 37-43 (1983).

[27]Henry R. West, "Mill's Qualitative Hedonism" 51, Philosophy, 97-101 (1976).

[28]Chinese Communist Party, available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-Communist-Party (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[29]Chinese Civil War [1927-1949], available at https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/chinese-civil-war-1927-1949/ (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[30]Milestones: 1945- 1952, available at https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/chinese-rev (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[31]Chinese Civil War [1927-1949], available at https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/chinese-civil-war-1927-1949/ (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[32]Kenneth G. Lieberthal, Cultural Revolution, Encyclopedia Britannica, available at https://www.britannica.com/event/Cultural-Revolution (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[33]Lindsay Maizland and Eleanor Albert, The Chinese Communist Party, Council on Foreign Relations, October 6, 2022, available at https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinese-communist-party (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[34]Guo Rui, China’s Communist Party nears 97 million, with more younger and educated members, South China Morning Post,June 30 2022, available at https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3183669/chinas-communist-party-grows-near-97-million-its-made-younger (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[35]Brazilian Center for International Relations, "The Chinese Political System" 7 (September 2021).

[36]Jinfen Yan "Utilitarianism in Chinese Thought" Philpapers, 1998, available at https://philpapers.org/rec/YANUIC (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[37] Shirley Ze Yu "Deng’s pragmatism is China’s poison pill", The Interpreter, June 15, 2022, available at https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/deng-s-pragmatism-china-s-poison-pill (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[38]Ilya Somin, "Remembering the biggest mass murder in the history of the world", The Washington Post, August 3, 2016, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/03/giving-historys-greatest-mass-murderer-his-due/ (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[39]Aadil Brar, "A new book exposes China’s hidden corruption. Xi’s family and CCP have a lot to answer" The Print, September 15, 2021, available at https://theprint.in/opinion/eye-on-china/a-new-book-exposes-chinas-hidden-corruption-xis-family-and-ccp-have-a-lot-to-answer/733530/ (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[40]China: Freedom in the World 2022 Country Report, available at https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2022 (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[41]Amnesty International, "China: Draconian repression of Muslims in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity" (2021).

[42]Amnesty International "Everything you need to know about Human Rights in China" (2021).

[43]Id.

[44]Human Rights Watch, available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/14/china-xinjiang-official-figures-reveal-higher-prisoner-count (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[45]Sean Michael Kerner, "Great Firewall of China" WhatIs.com, available at https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/Great-Firewall-of-China (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[46]Amnesty International "Everything you need to know about Human Rights in China" (2021).

[47]China: Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report, available at https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2021 (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[48]Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports of China (including Hong Kong, China and Macau, China), UN Doc CERD/C/CHN/CO/14-17 7 (August 30, 2018).

[49]Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports of China (including Hong Kong, China and Macau, China), UN Doc CERD/C/CHN/CO/14-17 40 (August 30, 2018).

[50]“Break Their Lineage, Break Their Roots”, available at https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[51]Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports of China (including Hong Kong, China and Macau, China), UN Doc CERD/C/CHN/CO/14-17 46 (August 30, 2018).

[52]UN Office of High Commissioner, OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China, UN Doc 85 (August 31 2022).

[53]Submission to the CERD review of China, available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/21/submission-cerd-review-china (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[54]Laura He, "China’s economy is ‘in deep trouble’ as Xi heads for next decade in power", CNN Business, October 15, 2022, available at https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/14/economy/china-party-congress-economy-trouble-xi-intl-hnk/index.html (last visited on November 24 2022).

[55]Lili Pike “China’s economic inequality is worse than America’s. And the pandemic hasn’t helped.” Grid, July 26, 2022, available at https://www.grid.news/story/global/2022/07/26/chinas-economic-inequality-is-worse-than-americas-and-the-pandemic-hasnt-helped/ (last visited on November 24 2022).

[56]Sonali Jain-Chandra, Niny Khor, Rui Mano, Johanna Schauer, Philippe Wingender and Juzhong Zhuang "Inequality in China – Trends, Drivers and Policy Remedies" WP/18/127 6 (2018).

[57]Sonali Jain-Chandra, Niny Khor, Rui Mano, Johanna Schauer, Philippe Wingender and Juzhong Zhuang "Inequality in China – Trends, Drivers and Policy Remedies" WP/18/127 4 (2018).

[58]China's youth unemployment rate as high as nearly 20%, available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/chinas-youth-unemployment-rate-as-high-as-nearly-20/articleshow/93782659.cms (last visited on November 24 2022).

[59]China Youth Jobless Rate Hits Record 20% in July on Covid Woes available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-15/china-youth-jobless-rate-hits-record-20-in-july-on-covid-woes (last visited on November 24 2022).

[60]China property price crash: Developer defaults leave nationwide house costs falling amid a widening economic slowdown, available at https://capital.com/china-property-price-crash-investment-economic-slowdown (last visited on November 24 2022).

[61]Id.

[62]Laura He, "China’s real estate crisis could be over. Property stocks are soaring" CNN Business, November 14, 2022, available at https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/14/investing/china-real-estate-crisis-over-rescue-plan-intl-hnk/index.html (last visited on November 24 2022).

[63]Explained: Why China's crumbling real estate sector has the world on edge, available at https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/business/explained-why-chinas-crumbling-real-estate-sector-has-the-world-on-edge/articleshow/93071962.cms (last visited on November 24 2022).

[64]Hector-Neri Castañeda, "On the Problem of Formulating a Coherent Act-Utilitarianism" 31, Analysis, 118-124 (1971)

[65]Cinara Nahra, The harm principle and the greatest happiness principle: the missing link, Scientific Electronic Library Online, available at https://www.scielo.br/j/kr/a/RvnVGk7zY5CVMKVFSCdyWBy/ (last visited on November 24 2022).

[66]Cinara Nahra, The harm principle and the greatest happiness principle: the missing link, Scientific Electronic Library Online, available at https://www.scielo.br/j/kr/a/RvnVGk7zY5CVMKVFSCdyWBy/ (last visited on November 24 2022).

[67]Charles Landesman "A Note on Act Utilitarianism" 73 The Philosophical Review 243-247 (1964)

[68]Xi Jinping Millionaire Relations Reveal Elite Chinese Fortunes, available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-06-29/xi-jinping-millionaire-relations-reveal-fortunes-of-elite (last visited on November 24, 2022)

[69]Aadil Brar, "A new book exposes China’s hidden corruption. Xi’s family and CCP have a lot to answer" The Print, September 15, 2021, available at https://theprint.in/opinion/eye-on-china/a-new-book-exposes-chinas-hidden-corruption-xis-family-and-ccp-have-a-lot-to-answer/733530/ (last visited on November 24, 2022)

[70]Alexandra Stevenson and Michael Forsythe, "Luxury Homes Tie Chinese Communist Elite to Hong Kong’s Fate", The New York Times, August 12, 2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/business/china-hong-kong-elite.html (last visited on November 24, 2022)

[71]How China is ruled: National People's Congress, available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13908155 (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[72]Jane Cai, "Structure of China’s Communist Party: party cells, decision-making process, concentration of power", South China Morning Post, 11 May, 2021, available at https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3132921/how-chinas-communist-party-structured (last visited on November 24, 2022).

[73]Congressional Research Service, Susan V. Lawrence and Michael F. Martin, "Understanding China’s Political System" 31 (March 2013).

[74]Id.

[75]Jonathan Riley, "Utilitarian Ethics and Democratic Government" 100, The University of Chicago Press, 335-348 (1990)

[76]Congressional Research Service, Susan V. Lawrence and Michael F. Martin, "Understanding China’s Political System" 4 (December 2009),

[77]Id.

[78]Congressional Research Service, Susan V. Lawrence and Michael F. Martin, "Understanding China’s Political System" 5 (March 2013).

[79]John Chandler, "Act-Utilitarianism and Collective Action" 84 Ethics, 78-85 (1973)

[80]Raanan Gillon “Utilitarianism” 290 British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 1411-1413 (1985)

WHITE BLACK LEGAL LAW JOURNAL ISSN: 2581-8503

Abbreviation: White Black Legal Law Journal

ISSN: 2581-8503

Website: whiteblacklegal.co.in

Accessibility: Open Access

License: Creative Commons 4.0

Submit Manuscript:

Licensing:

All research articles published WHITE BLACK LEGAL LAW JOURNAL are fully open access. i.e. immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license, which permits, use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of WHITE BLACK LEGAL LAW JOURNAL or its members. The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the WHITE BLACK LEGAL LAW JOURNAL

-->

Act-Based Utilitarianism and the People’s Republic of China By- Nived Koladi Mootheri

Act-Based Utilitarianism and the People’s Republic of China By- Nived Koladi Mootheri

Abstract

Introduction

Statement of Problem

Research Questions

Utilitarianism

Question of Revolution in Act-Based Utilitarianism

Concerns with Act-Based Utilitarianism

People’s Republic of China

Act-Based Utilitarianism and the

People’s Republic of China

The Chinese Future

Pragmatic Utilitarianism

Conclusion

Let's Start With Publication

SUBMIT YOUR PAPER FOR REVIEW