[spellbanisher]

Perhaps noncompetitive is not descriptive enough. The word implies passivity, a mere abstinence from competition, whereas Franklin was a believer in actively doing good. Maybe the term cooperative would be more appropriate, but I think that does not quite encompass Franklin's philosophy. Perhaps he can be described as a proto-utilitarian, whose first principle was the greatest happiness produced for the community that he lived in. Franklin does not have any inviolable principles; the only principle that he adheres to is that whatever does the greatest good is best. That is why he is tolerant of all religions, and why he does not piously follow the one he professes to believe in.

Most people have absolute beliefs or principles that the adhere to no matter the greater results, either for personal gain or for some notion of universal right. A conservative or libertarian, in their most candid moments, will argue that it is wrong to impose income taxes, not because they do no good, but because it is wrong to take property under any conditions. In the same way a liberal might believe that redistributing wealth is the just and fair thing to do, no matter whether this does good for society or not.

Franklin's utilitarianism is evidence that he still lives in a social, or communal age. He does not seem to think in terms of individualism, or in any notion of a solitary person. Instead, he lives in a time where people's identified more with their local community than anything else. Thus, Franklin's mindset never seems to be self-gain, but how he can best improve or contribute to the greater good of his community. This does not mean that he does not act in his self-interest, only that he did not separate his self-interest from the interests of the community. I don't think he ever evokes the notion of the self-made man, although I could be mistaken about that.

Franklin's utilitarianism has implications for everything he does, both good and bad. Just look at his philosophy of reading, for instance. Today reading is viewed as a personal or solitary activity, as an activity that you do for your own pleasure or for expanding your own knowledge. But Franklin seemed to view reading as a social activity. He notes the advantages that he got from reading in this passage:

“My mind having been much more improv'd by reading than Keimer's, I suppose it was for that reason my conversation seem'd to be more valu'd. They had me to their houses, introduced me to their friends, and show'd me much civility.

He indirectly talks about the social purposes of reading when discussing the benefits of the library he created:

“These libraries have improved the general conversation of the Americans, made the common tradesmen and farmers as intelligent as most gentlemen from other countries, and perhaps have contributed in some degree to the stand so generally made throughout the colonies in defense of their privileges.”

There are probably better passages that can be used, but these will suffice. In the first passage, we see that the improvement of his mind by reading makes him more valuable to others. Reading makes him more knowledgeable and interesting, and that makes him more useful or pleasurable to others. His ability to please or pleasure others, along with his reputation for integrity, enables him to do a tremendous amount of good in society, such as starting libraries and hospitals. In fact, whenever there is some need in Philadelphia it seems that Franklin is the first person that they turn to. Far from being an activity of personal entertainment or escapism, reading is a highly useful activity for Franklin. He uses reading of poetry and of essays from the Spectator to improve his own writing style, which enables him to be more persuasive and more effective in actuating communal projects when he writes in his newspaper. His variety of reading in religious and didactic texts, such as the Pilgrims Progress, helps him develop a broad and nonalienating form of morality.

In the second passage he talks about the effect that libraries, and therefore reading, has on society in general. First, he says that it improves the general conversation, again implying the social component of reading; reading makes you a more interesting person, which enables you to give more pleasure to others. But I like his final implication; reading “contributed in some degree to the stand so generally made throughout the colonies in defense of their privileges.” The more knowledgeable or intelligent the general populace is, the more able they are to see the advantage of their rights, liberties, and privileges, and the more able they are to defend these things. By making books available to everyone in Philadelphia, Franklin benefits himself, first by making everyone else he might meet or talk to more interesting, but by also bolstering the general belief in universal liberties. Essentially, when everyone else is more well read, his own liberties are better protected.

There are limitations to Franklins utilitarianim, however. Franklin tends to think too much of maximizing productivity, even if it does not do the greatest good. What comes to mind is how he treated that poor woman who he found sweeping his pavement. When he asked her who had employed her to sweep pavement, she replied:

“Nobody, but I am very poor an in distress, and I sweeps before gentle-folkses doors, and hopes they will give me something.”

Franklin then pays her to sweep the whole street. So far so good. But then, he writes,

“I then judg'd that, if that feeble woman could sweep such a street in three hours, a strong, active man might have done it in half the time.”

Note that Franklin does not seem to care that the woman is impoverished; his only concern is that he can make the street sweeping even more efficient by hiring a strong and able man. The street sweeping job does a lot more good for the woman than it does for an able young man. It provides work for a woman who might has no other means of making a living. An able young man can always find work, and there are probably better uses for his vigor than sweeping streets. Additionally, society probably benefits greater from the old woman doing the street sweeping, since otherwise she might become a nuisance or burden to society. In both instances the work will be done in a reasonable amount of time; does society really gain that much added benefit from the streets being swept in 1.5 hours instead of three? But Franklin seems to see only in terms of maximum productivity, which one could say is the blindspot in his utilitarianism.