Lydgate's voting decision in Middlemarch and utilitarian theory

Middlemarch

apply Mill's theory to Lydgate's decision in chapter 18 on how to vote

Middlemarch: Lydgate's decision

In George Eliot's novel Middlemarch, Dr. Lydgate is an ambitious young physician who wants to reform medicine. When contemplating whom he should vote for in an election between two clergy members, Lydgate is faced with a difficult choice. Mr. Farebrother is a kind, likeable man whom Lydgate finds more personable than the popular, safe choice of Tyke. However, Farebrother gambles for money, a fact that shocks Lydgate. Moreover, the banker Bulstrode supports Tyke. Lydgate craves financial assistance to further his necessary medical work -- work which Lydgate feels is necessary to serve the interests of humanity. Lydgate tends to view the election as an annoyance and supports Tyke more out of convenience and to further his own interests in Middlemarch. "He was really uncertain whether Tyke were not the more suitable candidate, and yet his consciousness told him that if he had been quite free from indirect bias he should have voted for Mr. Farebrother" (Eliot 187).

I would have supported Farebrother. The gambling does not seem to be so pervasive that it is troubling. Also, it is nice to see a clergyman who is not self-righteous and appreciates the foibles of humanity. Ultimately, the chief duty of the clergy is to serve their human flock, and Farebrother seems like the warmer and kinder of the two men.

Step 3

Rule utilitarianism suggests that all moral 'rules' should support the happiness of the greatest number of people. If the 'rule' is that votes should be cast based upon the candidate's fitness for the job vs. The personal interests of the voter, Lydgate's choice seems clear: he admits that Farebrother is the better man for the job. Rule-based utilitarianism suggests that for the majority of persons, casting votes based upon merit rather than personal interests and hopes of patronage is a superior course of action.

Step 4

Lydgate makes his decision based mainly upon personal interests, although his personal interests are altruistic in the sense that he wants support for his medical research and practice to help others, not simply to buy a nice new home. My personal decision-making would be based upon my dislike of Bulstrode's bullying and my dislike of Tyke's show of cold piety, versus Farebrother's more warm and humane version of Christianity.

Act-based and rule-based utilitarianism would support a vote for Farebrother, but for different reasons. Act-based utilitarianism would suggest that it can be certain that more people would be helped be ensuring Farebrother receive the position. It is uncertain if Bulstrode will really advance Lydgate's work, but it is almost certain that Farebrother will bring more people into church (which is part of his job); be more kind in tending to his flock, and that the position may even encourage him to gamble less, now that he has less of a financial need to do so. Rule-based utilitarianism suggests that all decisions should be made regarding employment based upon qualifications rather than nepotism. This alone ensures that the greatest amount of good can be done for the greatest number of people. Regardless of what one believes is truly the most utilitarian course of action, Lydgate clearly made his decision based upon his cowardice, self-interest, and a bit of personal, irrational moral distaste gambling. Overall, the greatest good for the greatest number of people is more likely to be achieved if decisions are made in an objective fashion.

Step 5

It is possible to make an act-based argument in favor of Tyke, if one genuinely believes that Farebrother's gambling may spiral out of control and become hurtful to others. But overall, the principles of both act-based and rule-based utilitarianism point in Farebrother's favor. Eliot's analysis of Lydgate's decision shows the degree to which self-serving, personal biases affect our decision-making. Lydgate may rationalize his behavior, but deep down inside he knows that he is not making his decision on a genuine utilitarian calculus of right and wrong.

The description of Lydgate's decision-making, however, may be an argument why utilitarianism can be difficult to implement in the 'real world.' It is easy to rationalize our biased decisions as doing the greatest good for the greatest number, or supporting moral principles that support the greatest good for the greatest number. If Lydgate had relied upon his innately good and principled character, rather than creating a utilitarian rationale that his work would be advanced if he supported Bulstrode and Tyke, he would have made a better decision.