Utilitarianism

At the outset of the nineteenth century, an influential group of British thinkers

developed a set of basic principles for addressing social
problems. Extrapolating fromHume's emphasis on the natural human interest
in utility, reformer Jeremy Benthamproposed a straightforward quantification
of morality by reference to utilitarianoutcomes. His An Introduction to the
Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) offers a simple statement of the
application of this ethical doctrine.

Bentham's moral theory was founded on the assumption that it is

the consequences of human actions that count in evaluating their merit and that
the kind of consequence that matters for human happiness is just the
achievement of pleasure and avoidance of pain. He argued that
the hedonistic value of any human action is easily calculated by considering
how intensely its pleasure is felt, how long that pleasure lasts, how certainly
and how quickly it follows upon the performance of the action, and how likely
it is to produce collateral benefits and avoid collateral harms. Taking such
matters into account, we arrive at a net value of each action for any human
being affected by it.

All that remains, Bentham supposed, is to consider the extent of this

pleasure, since the happiness of the community as a whole is nothing other than
the sum of individual human interests. The principle of utility, then, defines the
meaning of moral obligation by reference to the greatest happiness of the
greatest number of people who are affected by performance of an action.
Similarly, Bentham supposed that social policies are properly evaluated in light
of their effect on the general well-being of the populations they involve.
Punishing criminals is an effective way of deterring crime precisely because it
pointedly alters the likely outcome of their actions, attaching the likelihood of
future pain in order to outweigh the apparent gain of committing the crime.
Thus, punishment must "fit" the crime by changing the likely perception of the
value of committing it.

John Stuart Mill

A generation later, utilitarianism found its most effective exponent in John

Stuart Mill. Raised by his father, the philosopher James Mill, on strictly
Benthamite principles, Mill devoted his life to the defence and promotion of the
general welfare. With the help his long-time companion Harriet Taylor, Mill
became a powerful champion of lofty moral and social ideals.
 Mill's Utilitarianism (1861) is an extended explanation of utilitarian moral
theory. In an effort to respond to criticisms of the doctrine, Mill not only argued
in favor of the basic principles of Jeremy Bentham but also offered several
significant improvements to its structure, meaning, and application. Although
the progress of moral philosophy has been limited by its endless disputes over
the reality and nature of the highest good, Mill assumed from the outset,
everyone can agree that the consequences of human actions contribute
importantly to their moral value. (Utilitarianism 1)

Mill fully accepted Bentham's devotion to greatest happiness principle as the

basic statement of utilitarian value:

" . . . 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." (Utilitarianism 2)
But he did not agree that all differences among pleasures can be quantified. On
Mill's view, some kinds of pleasure experienced by human beings also differ
from each other in qualitative ways, and only those who have experienced
pleasure of both sorts are competent judges of their relative quality. This
establishes the moral worth of promoting higher (largely intellectual) pleasures
among sentient beings even when their momentary intensity may be less than
that of alternative lower (largely bodily) pleasures. Even so, Mill granted that
the positive achievement of happiness is often difficult, so that we are often
justified morally in seeking primarily to reduce the total amount of pain
experienced by sentient beings affected by our actions. Pain—or even the
sacrifice of pleasure—is warranted on Mill's view only when it results directly
in the greater good of all.

Against those who argue that the utilitarian theory unreasonably demands of
individual agents that they devote their primary energies to the cold-hearted
and interminable calculation of anticipated effects of their actions, Mill offered
a significant qualification. Precisely because we do not have the time to
calculate accurately in every instance, he supposed, we properly allow our
actions to be guided by moral rules most of the time. Partly anticipating the
later distinction between act and rule utilitarianism, Mill pointed out that
secondary moral principles at the very least perform an important service by
providing ample guidance for every-day moral life. Finally, however, he
emphasized that the value of each particular action—especially in difficult or
controversial cases—is to be determined by reference to the principle of utility
itself.

What motivates people to do the right thing? Mill claimed universal

agreement on the role of moral sanctions in eliciting proper conduct from
human agents. (Utilitarianism 3) But unlike Bentham, Mill did not restrict
himself to the socially-imposed external sanctions of punishment and blame,
which make the consequences of improper action more obviously painful. On
Mill's view, human beings are also motivated by such internal sanctions as self-
esteem, guilt, and conscience. Because we all have social feelings on behalf of
others, the unselfish wish for the good of all is often enough to move us to act
morally. Even if others do not blame or punish me for doing wrong, I am likely
to blame myself, and that bad feeling is another of the consequent pains that I
reasonably consider when deciding what to do.

In Chapter Four, Mill offers as "proof" of the principle of utility an argument

originally presented by his father, James Mill. The best evidence of the
desirability of happiness is that people really do desire it; and since each
individual human being desires her own happiness, it must follow that all of us
desire the happiness of everyone. Thus, the Mills argued, the greatest pleasure
of all is morally desirable. (Utilitarianism 4) The argument doesn't hold up well
at all in logical terms, since each of its inferences is obviously fallacious, but
Mill may have been correct in supposing on psychological grounds that seeking
pleasure and avoiding pain are the touchstones by which most of us typically
live.

Finally, Mill argued that social applications of the principle of utility are
fully consistent with traditional concern for the promotion of justice. Justice
involves respect for the property, rights, and deserts of individual citizens,
along with fundamental presumptions in favor of good faith and impartiality.
All of these worthwhile components of justice are adequately preserved by
conscientious application of the principle of utility, Mill supposed, since
particular cases of each clearly result in the greatest happiness of all affected
parties. (Utilitarianism 5) Although a retributive sentiment in favor of
punishing wrong-doers may also be supposed to contribute to the traditional
concept of justice, Mill insisted that the appropriately limited use of external
sanctions on utilitarian grounds better accords with a legitimate respect for the
general welfare. Mill also pointed out that the defence of individual human
freedom is especially vital to living justly, but that had been the subject of
another book.
 Utilitarianism
In this section an overview of what utilitarianism actually is will be
presented, and which theories go against it. There will be a short
presentation of the main utilitarian values.

First of all it should be mentioned that utilitarianism is a moral or ethical

theory which says that the ethically right action is the one that in
comparison to other possibilities brings out the largest amount of
positive values. Utilitarianism belongs to the philosophical category of
consequentialism. The basis of the theory is that in order for a property
to be valuable "it must be a universal feature, capable of being realized
here or there, with this individual or that". So the most important feature
of this theory is that anyone in the world would chose one action over
the other on the basis of the same moral judgment; this judgment works
as a set of rules for everyone to follow.

Another term for consequentialism is teleology, which is an older term.

Moral theories are usually divided into two different sides – teleology
and deontology. To sum it up quickly, teleological ethics say that one
should always judge an action from its consequences, whereas
deontological ethics say that one should not judge actions from their
consequences, but instead from what is the right thing to do in each
separate situation. So the teleological view is the "good", the greatest
good for the largest amount of people, while the deontological view is
the "right", to do the right thing.

A teleological ethic must be connected with a theory of what is good in

itself, a philosophy of value; deontological ethic, however, must also
consist of a teaching of duty.

To sum it up quickly, utilitarianism leaves nothing up to the imagination.

Everything is to be explained by the help of logic and facts.
Individualism and egoism are important factors in this system. Attention
is put on the individual and his/her goals to receive most pleasure out of
life. Of course, individual pleasure and most positive values out of each
given situation doesn’t sound that bad to begin with. But this ideology
has too many holes in it to include everyone. This sort of individualism
becomes more like the survival of the fittest, and that leaves a lot of
"unfit" people out of its consideration.

The utilitarian philosophers, who are mentioned most often, are Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill. These two, however, represent two
totally different aspects of this ideology. Bentham is the one who stands
for the ideology described in the paragraph above. Utility, well-being
and pleasure are the main sources for action in every human, in his
opinion. This philosophy was very dominant at the time ‘Hard Times’
was written.

Mill was also very influenced by utilitarianism, but at the same time he
had a very critical relationship to this theory. Instead he turned more to
the classical liberalism and has been considered one of the pioneers of
social-liberalism, which turns its back on the laissez-faire politics. His
central points or values are personal freedom, self-respect, integrity,
and social well-being. It could be claimed that his philosophy was a little
bit closer to what Dickens believed in, but this shall be elaborated on
later in the paper.

Having presented these two philosophers views on utilitarianism, it may

have opened the path for a better understanding of the view that
Dickens had on this ideology. Mill was a bit of a rebel in that field, but
still he was a follower of that same ideology - he had lived under it his
whole life; his father, John Mill, was very devoted to this system, as was
Bentham.

Having presented the aspects of utilitarianism, the next step will be to

spot this philosophy among the characters in ‘Hard Times’. It is not
difficult for the reader to find out that Dickens satirizes this theory, but
the interesting thing is how he does it through the characters. This will
be discussed in the following section.

3. Utilitarianism in ’Hard Times’

"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but
Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out
nothing else." These are harsh words, spoken to a classroom full of
young children. These are also the first sentences in the novel, so the
reader is put into the utilitarian way of thinking as soon as he/she opens
the book.
When reading the novel, the reader quickly gets acquainted with this
ideology that was so dominating during the period it was written. But it is
through the characters themselves that the reader receives most of the
impressions, or experiences most emotions, and not least, forms his/her
own ideas and opinions about the subject. Of course the characters are
the most important ingredients in any novel, but in this one the
characters seem to represent a whole lot more than just being
characters in a story for the people to read. Perhaps it is because
Dickens himself felt so strongly about the subject that his own ideology
shines through so clearly in this novel especially, so he, himself, steps
into the story and influences the characters directly (this will be further
discussed in section 4 and in the conclusion).

3.1 Utilitarian aspects among the characters

In this discussion I have chosen to include only those characters that

are of most importance to the context of this paper.

Mr. Thomas Gradgrind and Mr. Josiah Bounderby are the most
outstanding representatives of utilitarianism in the novel and very good
followers of this system they are indeed. Facts alone are the principles
to live ones life by in their opinions, facts alone will lead you forward in
society. And these facts of life must be taught to the children from their
birth, so to speak. One very good example of this is Louisa, Mr.
Gradgrind’s favorite daughter. She is the character who seems to be the
living proof of the success of this factual system (or at least, so Mr.
Gradgrind thought).

The one scene which stands out most clearly to the reader as a
representation of this system’s firm ideology is the scene when Mr.
Gradgrind introduces his daughter to the marriage proposal from Mr.
Bounderby. This scene exposes this ideology right to the skin as far as
compassion and love goes. For example, the following part of their
dialogue appears very harsh (Louisa has just asked her father if Mr.
Bounderby asks her to love him, and Mr. Gradgrind says that that
expression is perhaps a little misplaced):
"What would you advise me to use in its stead, father?

…"I would advise you (since you ask me) to consider this question, as you have been
accustomed to consider every other question, simply as one of tangible Fact."
And then he gives her a long impersonal speech consisting of a number
of facts about different marriage statistics, and Louisa tries again:
"What do you recommend, father,…that I should substitute for the term I used
just now? For the misplaced expression?"

"Louisa…it appears to me that nothing can be plainer. Confining yourself rigidly

to Fact, the question of Fact you state to yourself is: Does Mr. Bounderby ask me
to marry him? Yes, he does. The sole remaining question then is: Shall I marry
him? I think nothing can be plainer than that."

Thus, love is not the major issue in a marriage. Only the facts are
important in every situation. The decision of sharing one’s life with
someone for the rest of ones life should be no different than any other
decision to be taken in the course of one’s life. The facts of the matter
are what is of importance, and the facts were that she had received a
marriage proposal from Mr. Bounderby. So, was she to accept it or
decline it? As a perfect example of the system she was brought up by,
she accepts the marriage proposal, even though she was not the least
in love with her future husband.

Louisa is a character in the novel who is touched by both "worlds" - the

world of facts and the world of fancy. But surely the world of facts is the
most dominant to her. She does break "free" from it, but obviously not
entirely. One reason for claiming this is the fact that she was a grown
woman before she was able to stand up to it - therefore it may have
been too late for her to leave everything ever taught to her completely
behind. Another reason is at the end of the novel, where one is led to
believe that she was left to a destiny of not knowing about the future.
She could still only see facts that were presented to her very eyes, but
could not see things for herself in the future. Things were just to be. She
could see things happening to other people around her, but for herself
she could not imagine anything good happening.

Tom Gradgrind, the son, is a completely different example of this

ideology. Under the roof of his parents, he, of course, has no other
choice than to oblige his parents’ wishes or commands, so he is thereby
brought up by the same principles as his sister. But as the story goes on
we find out that his character is more ridiculous than serious. He is
constantly being referred to as the "whelp", his actions are dubious
when it comes to consequences or fairness. Of course, it could be
claimed that he is a perfect copy or example of utilitarianism, because
every action he commits he commits out of self-interest. So the
consequences of his actions are determined by what he himself can get
out of it.

Therefore, one can say, in a strictly consequentialist manner, that by

letting everyone think that Steven Blackpool robbed the bank, less
people were likely to get hurt than if he said that he had done it himself.
Then he would have hurt his sister, his whole family, and not least Mr.
Bounderby. Whereas by letting people think that Blackpool did it, less
people were going to get hurt – first, he was already unpopular among
his people; second, he didn’t really have any family; and of course, third,
he was poor. So it could be claimed that young Tom does live up to the
utilitarian standards as much as anyone, perhaps even more than any
of the other characters (with Mr. Bounderby as a possible exception).

Mr. Gradgrind is a very interesting character to study. In the beginning

he presents the very image of utilitarianism and most convincingly too.
In the way that he brings up his children, in his way of taking over Sissy
Jupe’s ’education’, through the marriage proposal-talk with Louisa, etc.
These examples all show a man dedicated to the world of facts. But
something happens to his devotion to that world. When Louisa comes to
him, crying and in a miserable state, something changes in this ’hard’
man, something softens up his heart, and he becomes a different and
more compassionate man, and, more important, a little more caring
father.

When Louisa confronts him with her open-hearted call for help and
critique of his role as a father, and overall critique of everything she had
ever known to be the truth, her words to him astonish him:
"If I had been stone blind; if I had groped my way by my sense of touch, and had
been free, while I knew the shapes and surfaces of things, to exercise my fancy
somewhat, in regard to them; I should have been a million times wiser, happier,
more loving, more contented, more innocent and human in all good respects,
than I am with the eyes I have."

…."I never knew you were unhappy, my child."

"I never knew you were unhappy", was his reply to his daughter. And he
really didn’t know it, or at least he did not want to know it. The last
sentence in that chapter of the novel is: "And he laid her down there,
and saw the pride of his heart and the triumph of his system, lying, an
insensible heap, at his feet." Everything that he had ever believed to be
true and right, lied there at his feet now, shattered. His life’s work had
crumbled together in a matter of minutes. And after this scene it seems
as if he wants to make it up to her, her lost childhood, his fatherly love
and protection, as he takes her in his house, protects her honor from
Mr. Bounderby. So only a few words of reason, of love, were enough to
break down a whole system of ideas.

In the beginning of the novel, Mr. Gradgrind was a very strong-minded

and dominating character, but after this episode it seems as if he falls
into the background, becomes more neutral in some sense. And he
takes the whole utilitarian ideology down with him. After this the world
around all of the characters becomes different, as if in some way the
ideology was firmly held together by him alone. And when he starts to
lose his confidence in the system the system falls apart. Of course, on
the other hand, it can also be claimed that after this incident things sort
of take off and he takes action in cases that he wouldn’t have done
before – he keeps Mr. Bounderby from his daughter and he helps his
son escape.

Mr. Bounderby is also a character of importance when it comes to

utilitarian beliefs. He is probably the only one that keeps a firm belief in
the system all through the novel, although he, as much as the other
characters, does go through some individual problems and changes.
But he is the one that ends up in the exact same situation as he started
out with, as a bachelor. So he is at the same point at the end of the
story as he was in the beginning. And one cannot really claim that he
has undergone as much personal development as the other characters.
While Mr. Gradgrind seems to be the one who holds the ideology
together, Mr. Bounderby seems to represent the very essence of the
ideology. He ends up all alone, even without his biggest fan, Mrs.
Sparsit.

But as it turns out even Mr. Bounderby is a character living on an

illusion; that is what makes this novel so interesting too. He represents
the very essence of this harsh ideology that has no place for
imagination. And still he lives in the illusion that he is the living proof of
the self-made man. That he has found his way out of the misery and
poor circumstances that his grandmother left him under. But as it turns
out, none of the stories that he so proudly talked about seemed to be
true. So one can claim that he has quite an imagination for a utilitarian
mind. He has defended the whole system of inequality by demonstrating
himself as the perfect example that anyone can do it; the poor have no
excuse for not bettering their own situation. If he could do it, they could
too, if they put their minds to it. He was living on a lie.

Sissy Jupe is also a character worth mentioning in this context. Sissy is

one of the few who never completely becomes a victim to this cold,
factual world. Although she spends a large amount of her life in the
Gradgrind home, she never loses the qualities taught to her from her
own "people", from her own social background. This innocent young girl,
who was mocked by the teacher and presented as the "dumb" girl in the
beginning of the story slowly turns out to be the most central character
in the whole novel. And more important, she becomes the person with
the "surviving" or "winning" ideology, if one can call it an ideology.
Perhaps just the word "values" would say just as much as ideology.

Sissy functions as a sort of mediator between the two worlds - the world
of facts (or utilitarian liberalism) and the world of "plain" liberalism,
where feelings are the main concern, or serve as the basis of ones
actions (this will be elaborated on in the discussion about Dickens’ view
on utilitarianism). So suddenly Sissy has been given a huge
responsibility in the novel, even though there is quite a large section of
the novel where she is not mentioned at all. Sissy is sort of "gone" from
the story from the time that Louisa accepts the marriage proposal and
until she brakes down at her father’s home. But still she serves as one
of the most important characters in the novel, as the reminder and
messenger of the good and plain.

Last, Steven Blackpool also needs a presentation in this discussion. He

represents the complete opposite pole to this ideology of facts. Sissy, of
course, is also an outsider from this system, but still she has been
acquainted with it for many years and is living under its roof. She has no
choice but to accept the circumstances that put her into the Gradgrind
home. She still has all the pure qualities in her, but there has been put a
sort of a lid on them, she can’t express her true feelings under those
circumstances, not openly at least. Although she does influence people
anyway, quietly and unknowingly at first. After all the "troubles" in the
family she steps out more openly and full-hearted.

Steven is driven only by pure and unspoiled feelings and he is as

genuine as a person can ever be. And of course he belongs to the
underclass, the hard working people, the undermined people that
Dickens had turned it into a "mission" to save; to create an awareness
of the existence of this people and the pure qualities that they
possessed. Steven, thus, represents the unspoiled, pure human being.
Not spoiled by any political or ideological opinions or persuasions;
merely a man with the feelings a man is born with, such as love,
compassion, loyalty and pride, as well as humbleness.

The relationship between Sissy and Steven can perhaps be explained in

the same manner as the one between Mr. Gradgrind and Mr.
Bounderby. Steven represents the true and pure values that are so
much searched for in this novel, the pure human values, and Sissy
serves as the one that holds it all together. Mr. Gradgrind, with the help
from Louisa, had the power to hold the utilitarian ideology together or
make it fall apart, and Sissy has the power to influence and present
people to her qualities or to let everything be. So they are presented
with the power to make everything all right, to make things better.

The characters in the novel, therefore, play a large role in showing the
wrongs of the system. But where is Dickens himself in all of this? This is
an interesting discussion, which will be presented in the following
section.

4 Dickens in ‘Hard Times’

In this novel, in particular, it is very difficult to separate the writer from

the text. All through the novel one can almost feel Dickens’ presence
through the characters.

Dickens was very much against the system of individualism and egoism.
And not least, he was against the lack of imagination that this ideology
stood for. Imagination is a natural part of the growth of each individual
and without it the personality is left ‘naked’; one becomes merely a
product of the society one lives in, without any personal distinctiveness.

In his work on Dickens in ‘Appreciations and Criticisms’, Gilbert Keith

Chesterton argues that Dickens was a firm believer in liberalism. Not the
utilitarian liberalism that was practiced by Bentham and his followers,
but the liberalism that had begun in the American and French
Revolutions. In the section about ‘Hard Times’ he argues that the
English only inherited some aspects of the Revolution: "The English
people as a body went blind, as the saying is, for interpreting
democracy entirely in terms of liberty. They said that if they had more
and more liberty it did not matter whether they had any equality or any
fraternity." He goes as far as saying that there was one man who kept
his head straight, and this man was Dickens. Dickens was the man
who "was there to remind the people that England had rubbed out two
words of the revolutionary motto, had left only Liberty and destroyed
Equality and Fraternity". ‘Hard Times’ is a very good example of this
mission, where he does all he can to remind people of the qualities of
equality and fraternity.

So Dickens sets off to serve as the mediator between the harsh world of
facts and the world of equality and fraternity, exactly in the same way
that he lets the characters in the novel do it. Sissy, therefore, sort of
serves as the disguised writer in the novel. Dickens’ mission becomes
Sissy’s mission: to serve as a reminder of the important qualities in a
world of seemingly hopeless chaos. She was the one who took care of
Louisa and Rachel, the one who found Steven, the one who helped
young Tom and his father; she was the final link to a world of equality
and fraternity.

Dickens wanted the focus on facts and statistics in the education of

children to be removed, and a focus on developing the children’s
imagination to be practiced instead. Reading of literature, fairy tales,
and the development of aesthetic values overall were considered
important factors to him. Of course, in a system that has no room for
people’s imagination to explore the world with, where does that leave
Dickens? Everything he lives for turns into nothing. Thus, he turns into a
rebel, a man set out to convince his fellow Englishmen that the world of
fairy tales is not nonsense.

Most of all, in my opinion, Dickens sets out to set his countrymen

straight on the issue of equality and fraternity, on real liberalism.
Throughout many of his works focus is put on the poor and the working
people of London. Especially in ‘Hard Times’ he spotlights the lack of
equality and fraternity in England at that time.

Then one can ask oneself - which philosophical ideology did Dickens
believe to be true? This may be difficult to determine. Maybe he just
plainly believed in democracy. Besides Bentham and Mill, there were a
number of other outstanding European philosophers in that period. One
of them was a German named Emanual Kant, a great philosopher of
morals and ethics. He clearly breaks free from the utilitarian points of
view. He does, like the utilitarians, put most emphasis on the individual,
but in a totally different manner. Kant believed that the individual’s self-
worth is essential; everyone is on equal terms and the juridical and
political institutions are to secure freedom and equality for all.

The utilitarian discussion about whether or not one should sacrifice a

few in order for the majority to prosper is out of the question for Kant. It
is always unfair to violate an individual’s rights. Therefore, laws and
morals are not to be determined from their best consequences for the
majority of people. Instead, the individual’s rights, which are necessary
for people to live in moral freedom, are important, and those are for
example: the abolishment of slavery and other kinds of inequality,
abolishment of war, and a constitutional government.

The reason why Kant has been included here is that in my opinion
Dickens’ views are somewhat alike Kant’s. Dickens was, of course, also
influenced by the thinkers in his own country, but still there is a lot of
Kant’s ideology present in his criticism of the system. Dickens floats
somewhere between John S. Mill’s and Kant’s ideology, if one is to put
him in any box of categorization at all.

5 Conclusion

Working with this subject of utilitarianism and ‘Hard Times’ has led to
many interesting questions, both concerning the novel itself and
concerning Charles Dickens as a person. Which roles do the characters
of the novel really play, in a broader perspective? Are the different
characters representatives of different systems of thinking? What is
Dickens’ direct mission with this novel?

These are all questions that, in my opinion, have been more or less
discussed and answered throughout the paper. As mentioned in the
introduction, one interesting thing about this novel is how well Dickens
manages to make a fool out of the system, and gets away with it
perfectly well. The ideology so strongly held together by Mr. Gradgrind
and Mr. Bounderby is broken down, piece by piece. These two men are
presented as authorities in the beginning, men to look up to. Sissy Jupe
steps in as the "stupid" little girl who knows nothing of reality, but turns
out in the end to be the only one who can work out the mess that the
other characters have got themselves into. Mr. Gradgrind, the prominent
politician, turns out to need help from the little girl that he set out to
"help" in the beginning.

Steven Blackpool, the poor, hardworking man, the man who nobody
took seriously, except Rachel, turns out to be the most honest and
warmhearted man in the novel, and of course he was innocent of the
crime he was accused of. He dies by the hands of those who betrayed
and questioned him; the innocence is thereby killed by the system.

Louisa, who was portrayed as the perfect daughter and perfect result of
the utilitarian beliefs, turns out to curse this ideology altogether. From
the discussion in section 3.1 about the end of the story and what it
meant in regard to Louisa, she, in my opinion, represents the system
gone wrong. Dickens gets his most successful criticism of utilitarianism
through her. We hear of a longing and sad young woman, unable to
realize any of her potentials. She represents what Dickens believes to
be wrong about the system – the lack of imagination, real childhood,
compassion, understanding, etc. Sissy and Steven are there as the
opposite poles, the world that Louisa wants to join, but cannot, because
she has been "spoiled", her personality has not been given free hands
to grow. And being in between is almost as bad as being part of the
former ideology, she never becomes whole, never gets back what has
been lost.

As a concluding remark it can easily be claimed that Dickens felt

strongly about the subjects discussed in ‘Hard Times’. He was a strong
believer in equality for all, and a loyal "speaker" for the poor people in
England. He most certainly gets away with making the utilitarian
ideology look pretty ridiculous through this novel, and it is presented
very convincingly too. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not
Dickens was a liberal or of some other political conviction. But
personally, I find Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s arguments pretty convincing
and very interesting. In his opinion Dickens was an unspoilt liberal who
had remained rather hopeful.