In this essay I will analyze the process and outcome of the Māhele in terms of the utilitarian approach. Here the "ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the least harm. ... for all who are affected" (Valasquez et al., 2009). The two aspects of the Māhele to which I would like to apply the utilitarian framework is its intent and real outcome. What will be discussed and analyzed is whether the intent of the Mōʻī and the Land Commsion in regards to the Māhele was to do the most good and the least harm for all the parties involved. We will also compare this intent to the historical outcome of the Māhele. I find it hard to apply an analysis of intent to the makaʻāinana as they were not the initiators or prime decision makers in regards to the Māhele. As commoners the makaʻāinana did not have an executive say. Instead this analysis focuses on the intents of the Mōʻī and Land Commision and the resulting reality of the Māhele.
Firstly, the Mōʻī was acutely aware that Britain, France, and the United States were competing to acquire territory in the Pacific in order to expand their individual military exploits (Van Dyke, 2008, p. 30). Van Dyke states that Kauikeauoli felt a "need to assuage the demands for land from westerners living in the Kingdom and those patrolling the Pacific with their warships, while also protecting the interests of his people" (2008, p. 30). The Mōʻī was not only thinking of himself and his Kingdom citizens but of foreigners and their demands. In other words, the Mōʻī was thinking of the most benefit for all parties involved. To further exemplify this belief The Great Mahele: Hawaii's Land Division of 1848 by John J. Chinen states that "the king was deeply concerned over the hostile activities of the foreigners in the Islands. He did not want his lands to be considered public domain and subject to confiscation by a foreign power in the event of a conquest" (as cited in Van Dyke, 2008, p.30). The Mōʻī's intent for the process of the Māhele was indeed completely inclusive of doing the most good for the most people and therefore ethical according to the utilitarian framework.
Second, the initial 7 principles by which the Land Commission was to abide set forth many utilitarian efforts yet, some aspect of their policy seems to not have had the best intentions. In particular the seventh principal adopted stating, "that all claims must be filed and proved within two years" (Van Dyke, p. 35). The dead line for makaʻāinana to submit land claims was extended to 1854 while the deadline for the Konohiki to submit claims was extended to 1895 (Van Dyke, p. 35, n. 35). This is unfair as the makaʻāinana were not thoroughly educated as to the reason and process of the Māhele and why they should have to submit a claim in order to continue living on their ancestral lands. Many makaʻāinana may have maintained the tradition of submitting to the Konohiki's care and may have not wanted to file a claim that would take away the customary realationship that the Chiefs had with the makaʻāinana. In direct contrast to the intents of the Mōʻī and Land Commision regarding the Māhele, the makaʻāinana did not rise up and claim 1/3 of the ʻāina in Hawaiʻi. The small window to file land claims definitely contributed to their displacement from the land and forced them into a lifestyle in which subsistence from the land was no longer possible. No good was done for those who were thrown off of their lands and cut off from their means of food production and acquisition. The intent of the Land Commission in assigning such a small amount of time for the makaʻāinana to seek education regarding the Māhele and file a claim, in my opinion, was unethical according to the utilitarian approach in that most of the population of native Hawaiians were represented by makaʻāinana who, in all, ended up with less than 1% of the land (Van Dyke, 2008, p. 45, n. 111) consequently doing the largest harm to the largest population in displacing the makaʻāinana from their land and means of subsistence.
In conclusion although the Mōʻī's intent was ethical within the utilitarian framework the intent of the Land Commission when establishing principle seven was not. Van Dyke draws upon Stauffer stating, that "the conventional wisdom is that this early statement of principles granting a third of the lands to the people was little more than propaganda to convince the [makaʻāinana] to go along" (emphasis added; Van Dyke, 2008, p. 45, n. 111). Van Dyke, drawing on Kuykendall, sums up the crux of the matter by providing the context in which the makaʻāinana were unethically displaced due to the Māhele:
The makaʻāinana were confused and did not know what they needed to do to obtain their land. Many were unaware that they needed to do anything, because they had always had access to whatever lands they needed. Many preferred continuing with the old system, whereby they had access to all the land of the Ahupuaʻa, for pasturing, fishing, and gathering, in exchange for providing some labor to the Konohiki. (2008, p. 45-46)
In my opinon the Land Commission was not set up to educate the makaʻāinana to the fact that their way of life, that had existed for thousands of years, was about to change. The Land Commission did not do the most good for the most people by enforcing a deadline while simultaneously failing to educate the largest population effected by their work, the makaʻāinana. If one were to apply the utilitarian framework of ethic to the current day organizations of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands one would find similarities in deficiency and be able to prove these organizations, like the Land Commision of 1848, unethical and therefore immoral as well as illegal.
References
-Van Dyke, Jon M. (2008). Who Owns the Crown Land of Hawaiʻi? Honolulu, Hawaiʻi:University of Hawaii Press.
-Velasquez, M., Moberg, D., Meyer, M.J., Shanks, T., McLean, M.R., DeCosse, D., Andre, C. & Hanson, K.O. (May 2009). A Framework for Thinking Ethically. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.htm
Firstly, the Mōʻī was acutely aware that Britain, France, and the United States were competing to acquire territory in the Pacific in order to expand their individual military exploits (Van Dyke, 2008, p. 30). Van Dyke states that Kauikeauoli felt a "need to assuage the demands for land from westerners living in the Kingdom and those patrolling the Pacific with their warships, while also protecting the interests of his people" (2008, p. 30). The Mōʻī was not only thinking of himself and his Kingdom citizens but of foreigners and their demands. In other words, the Mōʻī was thinking of the most benefit for all parties involved. To further exemplify this belief The Great Mahele: Hawaii's Land Division of 1848 by John J. Chinen states that "the king was deeply concerned over the hostile activities of the foreigners in the Islands. He did not want his lands to be considered public domain and subject to confiscation by a foreign power in the event of a conquest" (as cited in Van Dyke, 2008, p.30). The Mōʻī's intent for the process of the Māhele was indeed completely inclusive of doing the most good for the most people and therefore ethical according to the utilitarian framework.
Second, the initial 7 principles by which the Land Commission was to abide set forth many utilitarian efforts yet, some aspect of their policy seems to not have had the best intentions. In particular the seventh principal adopted stating, "that all claims must be filed and proved within two years" (Van Dyke, p. 35). The dead line for makaʻāinana to submit land claims was extended to 1854 while the deadline for the Konohiki to submit claims was extended to 1895 (Van Dyke, p. 35, n. 35). This is unfair as the makaʻāinana were not thoroughly educated as to the reason and process of the Māhele and why they should have to submit a claim in order to continue living on their ancestral lands. Many makaʻāinana may have maintained the tradition of submitting to the Konohiki's care and may have not wanted to file a claim that would take away the customary realationship that the Chiefs had with the makaʻāinana. In direct contrast to the intents of the Mōʻī and Land Commision regarding the Māhele, the makaʻāinana did not rise up and claim 1/3 of the ʻāina in Hawaiʻi. The small window to file land claims definitely contributed to their displacement from the land and forced them into a lifestyle in which subsistence from the land was no longer possible. No good was done for those who were thrown off of their lands and cut off from their means of food production and acquisition. The intent of the Land Commission in assigning such a small amount of time for the makaʻāinana to seek education regarding the Māhele and file a claim, in my opinion, was unethical according to the utilitarian approach in that most of the population of native Hawaiians were represented by makaʻāinana who, in all, ended up with less than 1% of the land (Van Dyke, 2008, p. 45, n. 111) consequently doing the largest harm to the largest population in displacing the makaʻāinana from their land and means of subsistence.
In conclusion although the Mōʻī's intent was ethical within the utilitarian framework the intent of the Land Commission when establishing principle seven was not. Van Dyke draws upon Stauffer stating, that "the conventional wisdom is that this early statement of principles granting a third of the lands to the people was little more than propaganda to convince the [makaʻāinana] to go along" (emphasis added; Van Dyke, 2008, p. 45, n. 111). Van Dyke, drawing on Kuykendall, sums up the crux of the matter by providing the context in which the makaʻāinana were unethically displaced due to the Māhele:
The makaʻāinana were confused and did not know what they needed to do to obtain their land. Many were unaware that they needed to do anything, because they had always had access to whatever lands they needed. Many preferred continuing with the old system, whereby they had access to all the land of the Ahupuaʻa, for pasturing, fishing, and gathering, in exchange for providing some labor to the Konohiki. (2008, p. 45-46)
In my opinon the Land Commission was not set up to educate the makaʻāinana to the fact that their way of life, that had existed for thousands of years, was about to change. The Land Commission did not do the most good for the most people by enforcing a deadline while simultaneously failing to educate the largest population effected by their work, the makaʻāinana. If one were to apply the utilitarian framework of ethic to the current day organizations of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands one would find similarities in deficiency and be able to prove these organizations, like the Land Commision of 1848, unethical and therefore immoral as well as illegal.
References
-Van Dyke, Jon M. (2008). Who Owns the Crown Land of Hawaiʻi? Honolulu, Hawaiʻi:University of Hawaii Press.
-Velasquez, M., Moberg, D., Meyer, M.J., Shanks, T., McLean, M.R., DeCosse, D., Andre, C. & Hanson, K.O. (May 2009). A Framework for Thinking Ethically. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.htm