Utilitarianism as a Force for Social Change?

Ever since Dr. Appiah came to campus for his lecture on The Honor Code, I’ve been thinking a lot about changes in societal morality and I’ve been noticing a pattern. Ultimately, the argument that propels a burgeoning moral issue from a theoretical debate over right and wrong, free of any tangible signs of progress, to a substantial change in public perception and policy tends to be of the utilitarian variety.

As Appiah described it, for instance, the practice of foot binding in China declined not because they suddenly realized foot binding was an immoral practice or because the motive of their actions violated the dignity and autonomy of foot binding recipients, but because the consequences, the shame they faced from external judgment and the social stigma that entailed, were too great. The theoretical arguments against foot binding, based on moral principles, had existed long before the actual shift in behavior, but it required the introduction of utility to spark any actual change.

Again while watching The Cove the other night, utilitarian arguments came into play. One of the arguments against the dolphin slaughter and consumption was the potential health risks of eating dolphin tainted to heavily with mercury. This argument was mixed in among many other arguments against the slaughter, both based on principles and particularly on emotions, but the emphasis on this relatively weak argument seemed significant.

In both cases, nobler arguments against the practices exist, labeling the practices as immoral themselves rather than simply condemning the consequences, but it is presumed and often substantiated that these utilitarian arguments are the ones the will be successful in their attempts to spark the change.

In other similar quests for moral change, utilitarian considerations play a role as a blockade against change supported by more rational arguments. The ProLife/anti-abortion movement, for example, tries to claim the moral high ground with its sanctity of life principle, but practical considerations about social structures for dealing with unwanted children and the reality that women with undesired pregnancies will likely terminate them whether it’s legal or not have stalled any significant changes in abortion policy since Roe v. Wade.

All these examples of this utilitarian phenomenon in social change (and lack there of) have me wondering why we don’t enact change on more noble grounds? Is it just an expectation of those striving for social change that they must appeal to our practical side instead of trying to change our deeply held moral principles right out of the shoot? Is that an accurate or acceptable view on humanity?