Counsel for the plaintiff (CP ) : Bigot I ACCUSE YOU of acting as accuser , judge and jury in what can only be described as the most shameful and scandalous episode in the club's infamous history....
B-J : Her aristocratic face didn't fit. Nobody liked the self-righteous, up-her-own-arse, sanctimonious, nit-picking , snotty nosed , germ ridden snob
Judge : Do I take it the Lady was not present at her disciplinary hearing ?
B-J : Too damn right......she wasn't......hells bells.....there's was no point. Christ almighty no one at the club wanted her around. She had the looks and charisma of a sewer rat
Judge : But every member, irrespective of age, gender , background , class, and race, has basic rights to attend an unbiased hearing...... as laid down by the club's constitution and/or the law of the land
B-J : Well, let me tell you your Honour that real justice is that preached by those who believe in utilitarianism. In other words any decision .....no matter how it is reached.....is fully justified and vindicated if it enables the majority to benefit , whilst at the same time minimised the pain experienced by the few. Indeed , all the club members rejoiced at the prospect of never having to see that posh, pompous bitch again.
Judge : Ah...I see that you have read J.S. Mills great work on this topic. Moreover , I noticed that in your evidence how you obtained a near 100% approval of your decision at an AGM to establish some justification for your utilitarian-based decision to expel the good Lady......but unfortunately for you the whole concept is flawed.
B-J : What......it can't be....it makes perfect sense. Actions are judged by their consequences , and the amount of pleasure all the club members derived from her expulsion was immense. Our aim has always been to maximise the greatest happiness for our members , and this was achieved when she was booted out. The utilitarian creed is widely accepted as the foundation rock on which all rational and moral judgements can be made.
Judge : But as I said before.....the creed is flawed. Firstly , how can you claim happiness as an outcome given the fact that most bridge players are , and always will be , apathetic , morose , miserable , grumpy , cantankerous anti-social misfits..... at the best of times.....who don't give a hoot about anything other than the next hand of cards coming up. Secondly , there is still the issue of unfairness in that ruthlessly carving up an innocent member just to appease a small baying lynch mob doesn't make your action fair. For instance , slavery was an unjust, cruel and evil institution , which by all accounts didn't worry or concern the ruling white majority at the time a single jot. But the most damning argument against utilitarianism is the creed's one-sidedness., which suggests that morality is best analysed entirely by people's actions and their consequences. This approach , of course , completely overlooks the more important elements of motives and intentions. These I believe.....in your case....were malicious and self-serving......and it is on those grounds I find for the plaintiff.
PC : Hoo-rah for the judge
B-J : Bugger.....bugger.....bugger