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.

Partly anticipating the later distinction between act and rule utilitarianism. and only those who have experienced pleasure of both sorts are competent judges of their relative quality. Mill granted that the positive achievement of happiness is often difficult. 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. Precisely because we do not have the time to calculate accurately in every instance. Mill pointed out that secondary moral principles at the very least perform an important service by providing ample guidance for every-day moral life. 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. he supposed. he emphasized that the value of each particular action—especially in difficult or . and application. however. Although the progress of moral philosophy has been limited by its endless disputes over the reality and nature of the highest good." (Utilitarianism 2) But he did not agree that all differences among pleasures can be quantified.Mill's Utilitarianism (1861) is an extended explanation of utilitarian moral theory. 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. actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. Mill not only argued in favor of the basic principles of Jeremy Bentham but also offered several significant improvements to its structure. . we properly allow our actions to be guided by moral rules most of the time. (Utilitarianism 1) Mill fully accepted Bentham's devotion to greatest happiness principle as the basic statement of utilitarian value: " . some kinds of pleasure experienced by human beings also differ from each other in qualitative ways. and the privation of pleasure. wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure. pain. In an effort to respond to criticisms of the doctrine. Mill offered a significant qualification. Mill assumed from the outset. Pain—or even the sacrifice of pleasure—is warranted on Mill's view only when it results directly in the greater good of all. everyone can agree that the consequences of human actions contribute importantly to their moral value. meaning. . and the absence of pain. Finally. On Mill's view. by unhappiness. Even so.

James Mill. . Mill argued that social applications of the principle of utility are fully consistent with traditional concern for the promotion of justice. Even if others do not blame or punish me for doing wrong. (Utilitarianism 4) The argument doesn't hold up well at all in logical terms. Because we all have social feelings on behalf of others. All of these worthwhile components of justice are adequately preserved by conscientious application of the principle of utility. (Utilitarianism 3) But unlike Bentham. On Mill's view. since each of its inferences is obviously fallacious. and deserts of individual citizens. rights. it must follow that all of us desire the happiness of everyone. 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. Mill supposed. Thus. Mill did not restrict himself to the socially-imposed external sanctions of punishment and blame. the greatest pleasure of all is morally desirable. human beings are also motivated by such internal sanctions as selfesteem. I am likely to blame myself. Finally. but that had been the subject of another book. which make the consequences of improper action more obviously painful. the unselfish wish for the good of all is often enough to move us to act morally. the Mills argued. 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. Justice involves respect for the property. and since each individual human being desires her own happiness. guilt. The best evidence of the desirability of happiness is that people really do desire it. (Utilitarianism 5) Although a retributive sentiment in favor of punishing wrong-doers may also be supposed to contribute to the traditional concept of justice.controversial cases—is to be determined by reference to the principle of utility itself. Mill also pointed out that the defence of individual human freedom is especially vital to living justly. In Chapter Four. Mill insisted that the appropriately limited use of external sanctions on utilitarian grounds better accords with a legitimate respect for the general welfare. since particular cases of each clearly result in the greatest happiness of all affected parties. and conscience. along with fundamental presumptions in favor of good faith and impartiality. Mill offers as "proof" of the principle of utility an argument originally presented by his father. and that bad feeling is another of the consequent pains that I reasonably consider when deciding what to do.

this judgment works as a set of rules for everyone to follow. A teleological ethic must be connected with a theory of what is good in itself. but instead from what is the right thing to do in each separate situation. 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. Individualism and egoism are important factors in this system. must also consist of a teaching of duty. and which theories go against it. The basis of the theory is that in order for a property to be valuable "it must be a universal feature. So the teleological view is the "good". Everything is to be explained by the help of logic and facts. however. To sum it up quickly. There will be a short presentation of the main utilitarian values. Of course. which is an older term. 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. a philosophy of value. deontological ethic. Attention is put on the individual and his/her goals to receive most pleasure out of life. individual pleasure and most positive values out of each given situation doesn’t sound that bad to begin with. Utilitarianism belongs to the philosophical category of consequentialism. the greatest good for the largest amount of people. capable of being realized here or there. Moral theories are usually divided into two different sides – teleology and deontology. with this individual or that". But this ideology .Utilitarianism In this section an overview of what utilitarianism actually is will be presented. teleological ethics say that one should always judge an action from its consequences. to do the right thing. To sum it up quickly. whereas deontological ethics say that one should not judge actions from their consequences. Another term for consequentialism is teleology. utilitarianism leaves nothing up to the imagination. while the deontological view is the "right".

spoken to a classroom full of young children. who are mentioned most often. and root out nothing else. Instead he turned more to the classical liberalism and has been considered one of the pioneers of social-liberalism. Mill was a bit of a rebel in that field. in his opinion. but the interesting thing is how he does it through the characters. self-respect. The utilitarian philosophers. Utility. was very devoted to this system. . so the reader is put into the utilitarian way of thinking as soon as he/she opens the book. but at the same time he had a very critical relationship to this theory. This will be discussed in the following section. but this shall be elaborated on later in the paper." These are harsh words. his father. John Mill. and that leaves a lot of "unfit" people out of its consideration. These are also the first sentences in the novel. Plant nothing else. Mill was also very influenced by utilitarianism. well-being and pleasure are the main sources for action in every human. it may have opened the path for a better understanding of the view that Dickens had on this ideology. the next step will be to spot this philosophy among the characters in ‘Hard Times’. which turns its back on the laissez-faire politics. 3. Having presented the aspects of utilitarianism. This sort of individualism becomes more like the survival of the fittest. as was Bentham. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. His central points or values are personal freedom. represent two totally different aspects of this ideology. and social well-being. what I want is. This philosophy was very dominant at the time ‘Hard Times’ was written. but still he was a follower of that same ideology . Bentham is the one who stands for the ideology described in the paragraph above. Having presented these two philosophers views on utilitarianism.has too many holes in it to include everyone. Utilitarianism in ’Hard Times’ "Now. are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Facts. It is not difficult for the reader to find out that Dickens satirizes this theory. integrity. however. Facts alone are wanted in life. It could be claimed that his philosophy was a little bit closer to what Dickens believed in. These two.he had lived under it his whole life.

Thomas Gradgrind and Mr. so he. This scene exposes this ideology right to the skin as far as compassion and love goes. steps into the story and influences the characters directly (this will be further discussed in section 4 and in the conclusion). One very good example of this is Louisa. Bounderby asks her to love him. Josiah Bounderby are the most outstanding representatives of utilitarianism in the novel and very good followers of this system they are indeed. 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. the reader quickly gets acquainted with this ideology that was so dominating during the period it was written. so to speak. Of course the characters are the most important ingredients in any novel. as you have been accustomed to consider every other question. Gradgrind introduces his daughter to the marriage proposal from Mr. For example. himself. so Mr. But it is through the characters themselves that the reader receives most of the impressions.When reading the novel. Gradgrind’s favorite daughter. And these facts of life must be taught to the children from their birth. Mr. Bounderby. She is the character who seems to be the living proof of the success of this factual system (or at least. Gradgrind thought). forms his/her own ideas and opinions about the subject. father? …"I would advise you (since you ask me) to consider this question. Mr. the following part of their dialogue appears very harsh (Louisa has just asked her father if Mr. 3. Gradgrind says that that expression is perhaps a little misplaced): "What would you advise me to use in its stead. simply as one of tangible Fact. and not least. or experiences most emotions. facts alone will lead you forward in society. Perhaps it is because Dickens himself felt so strongly about the subject that his own ideology shines through so clearly in this novel especially." . 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. and Mr.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. Facts alone are the principles to live ones life by in their opinions.

love is not the major issue in a marriage. and Louisa tries again: "What do you recommend. because every action he commits he commits out of self-interest. and the facts were that she had received a marriage proposal from Mr. Only the facts are important in every situation. is a completely different example of this ideology. Another reason is at the end of the novel. but could not see things for herself in the future. it could be claimed that he is a perfect copy or example of utilitarianism. But surely the world of facts is the most dominant to her.the world of facts and the world of fancy. his actions are dubious when it comes to consequences or fairness. father. Things were just to be. so he is thereby brought up by the same principles as his sister. Of course. has no other choice than to oblige his parents’ wishes or commands. She could see things happening to other people around her. 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. but for herself she could not imagine anything good happening. He is constantly being referred to as the "whelp". she accepts the marriage proposal. but obviously not entirely.…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. The facts of the matter are what is of importance. Louisa is a character in the novel who is touched by both "worlds" . Confining yourself rigidly to Fact. But as the story goes on we find out that his character is more ridiculous than serious. he. 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. the son. even though she was not the least in love with her future husband. Under the roof of his parents. So.therefore it may have been too late for her to leave everything ever taught to her completely behind. the question of Fact you state to yourself is: Does Mr. Bounderby ask me to marry him? Yes." Thus. The sole remaining question then is: Shall I marry him? I think nothing can be plainer than that. was she to accept it or decline it? As a perfect example of the system she was brought up by. She does break "free" from it. Tom Gradgrind. One reason for claiming this is the fact that she was a grown woman before she was able to stand up to it . of course. he does. So the . Bounderby.And then he gives her a long impersonal speech consisting of a number of facts about different marriage statistics.

and overall critique of everything she had ever known to be the truth. lied there at his feet now. while I knew the shapes and surfaces of things. happier. The last sentence in that chapter of the novel is: "And he laid her down there. In the way that he brings up his children. etc. and saw the pride of his heart and the triumph of his system. one can say. And he really didn’t know it. her words to him astonish him: "If I had been stone blind. Mr." "I never knew you were unhappy". was his reply to his daughter. he didn’t really have any family. in a strictly consequentialist manner. more contented. more loving. to exercise my fancy somewhat. But something happens to his devotion to that world. and not least Mr. if I had groped my way by my sense of touch. a little more caring father. Then he would have hurt his sister." Everything that he had ever believed to be true and right. something softens up his heart. less people were going to get hurt – first. he was poor. Gradgrind is a very interesting character to study. more innocent and human in all good respects. Bounderby. and had been free. in his way of taking over Sissy Jupe’s ’education’. His life’s work had . my child. and of course. an insensible heap. and.consequences of his actions are determined by what he himself can get out of it. than I am with the eyes I have. So it could be claimed that young Tom does live up to the utilitarian standards as much as anyone. lying."I never knew you were unhappy. perhaps even more than any of the other characters (with Mr. In the beginning he presents the very image of utilitarianism and most convincingly too. his whole family. or at least he did not want to know it. he was already unpopular among his people. something changes in this ’hard’ man. more important. and he becomes a different and more compassionate man. that by letting everyone think that Steven Blackpool robbed the bank. I should have been a million times wiser." …. When Louisa confronts him with her open-hearted call for help and critique of his role as a father. Therefore. Bounderby as a possible exception). third. less people were likely to get hurt than if he said that he had done it himself. When Louisa comes to him. Whereas by letting people think that Blackpool did it. shattered. These examples all show a man dedicated to the world of facts. crying and in a miserable state. in regard to them. second. at his feet. through the marriage proposal-talk with Louisa.

as he takes her in his house. were enough to break down a whole system of ideas. And he takes the whole utilitarian ideology down with him. Mr. And when he starts to lose his confidence in the system the system falls apart. He is probably the only one that keeps a firm belief in the system all through the novel. Gradgrind was a very strong-minded and dominating character. Gradgrind seems to be the one who holds the ideology together. as a bachelor. as if in some way the ideology was firmly held together by him alone. But as it turns out even Mr. Bounderby is also a character of importance when it comes to utilitarian beliefs. So he is at the same point at the end of the story as he was in the beginning. does go through some individual problems and changes. her lost childhood. That he has found his way out of the misery and poor circumstances that his grandmother left him under. But as it turns out. that is what makes this novel so interesting too. of love. So only a few words of reason. He represents the very essence of this harsh ideology that has no place for imagination. And after this scene it seems as if he wants to make it up to her. And still he lives in the illusion that he is the living proof of the self-made man. And one cannot really claim that he has undergone as much personal development as the other characters. Mrs. So one can claim that he has quite an imagination for a utilitarian mind. Of course. Bounderby from his daughter and he helps his son escape. the poor have no .crumbled together in a matter of minutes. even without his biggest fan. Bounderby is a character living on an illusion. as much as the other characters. But he is the one that ends up in the exact same situation as he started out with. 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. He ends up all alone. his fatherly love and protection. In the beginning of the novel. Sparsit. on the other hand. He has defended the whole system of inequality by demonstrating himself as the perfect example that anyone can do it. protects her honor from Mr. Mr. Bounderby. although he. but after this episode it seems as if he falls into the background. Mr. After this the world around all of the characters becomes different. becomes more neutral in some sense. Bounderby seems to represent the very essence of the ideology. While Mr. none of the stories that he so proudly talked about seemed to be true.

as the reminder and messenger of the good and plain.the world of facts (or utilitarian liberalism) and the world of "plain" liberalism. But still she serves as one of the most important characters in the novel. or serve as the basis of ones actions (this will be elaborated on in the discussion about Dickens’ view on utilitarianism). if they put their minds to it. not openly at least. If he could do it. but there has been put a sort of a lid on them. She has no choice but to accept the circumstances that put her into the Gradgrind home. 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. factual world. she can’t express her true feelings under those circumstances. if one can call it an ideology. she becomes the person with the "surviving" or "winning" ideology. Although she spends a large amount of her life in the Gradgrind home. Sissy. Last. is also an outsider from this system. And of course he belongs to the underclass. So suddenly Sissy has been given a huge responsibility in the novel. from her own social background. Perhaps just the word "values" would say just as much as ideology. He represents the complete opposite pole to this ideology of facts. After all the "troubles" in the family she steps out more openly and full-hearted. quietly and unknowingly at first. She still has all the pure qualities in her. the undermined people that Dickens had turned it into a "mission" to save. Although she does influence people anyway. of course. Sissy Jupe is also a character worth mentioning in this context. the hard working people. to create an awareness of the existence of this people and the pure qualities that they . This innocent young girl. Steven is driven only by pure and unspoiled feelings and he is as genuine as a person can ever be. where feelings are the main concern. they could too. He was living on a lie. Steven Blackpool also needs a presentation in this discussion. even though there is quite a large section of the novel where she is not mentioned at all. Sissy functions as a sort of mediator between the two worlds . she never loses the qualities taught to her from her own "people". 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. Sissy is one of the few who never completely becomes a victim to this cold. And more important.excuse for not bettering their own situation. but still she has been acquainted with it for many years and is living under its roof.

in particular. the pure human values. for interpreting democracy entirely in terms of liberty. and Sissy serves as the one that holds it all together. Gradgrind.possessed. with the help from Louisa. Imagination is a natural part of the growth of each individual and without it the personality is left ‘naked’. Steven. All through the novel one can almost feel Dickens’ presence through the characters. So they are presented with the power to make everything all right. Mr. such as love. loyalty and pride. And not least. and Sissy has the power to influence and present people to her qualities or to let everything be. Dickens was very much against the system of individualism and egoism. Gilbert Keith Chesterton argues that Dickens was a firm believer in liberalism. as well as humbleness. pure human being. represents the unspoiled. 4 Dickens in ‘Hard Times’ In this novel. which will be presented in the following section. had the power to hold the utilitarian ideology together or make it fall apart. compassion. play a large role in showing the wrongs of the system. he was against the lack of imagination that this ideology stood for. But where is Dickens himself in all of this? This is an interesting discussion. as the saying is. but the liberalism that had begun in the American and French Revolutions. Not spoiled by any political or ideological opinions or persuasions. 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. Steven represents the true and pure values that are so much searched for in this novel. The relationship between Sissy and Steven can perhaps be explained in the same manner as the one between Mr. Bounderby. merely a man with the feelings a man is born with. thus. one becomes merely a product of the society one lives in. In his work on Dickens in ‘Appreciations and Criticisms’. Gradgrind and Mr. it is very difficult to separate the writer from the text. therefore. to make things better. without any personal distinctiveness. The characters in the novel. They said that if they had more . Not the utilitarian liberalism that was practiced by Bentham and his followers.

Especially in ‘Hard Times’ he spotlights the lack of equality and fraternity in England at that time. Dickens was the man who "was there to remind the people that England had rubbed out two words of the revolutionary motto. He does.and more liberty it did not matter whether they had any equality or any fraternity. a great philosopher of morals and ethics. ‘Hard Times’ is a very good example of this mission. and the development of aesthetic values overall were considered important factors to him. sort of serves as the disguised writer in the novel. Thus. Besides Bentham and Mill. Dickens’ mission becomes Sissy’s mission: to serve as a reminder of the important qualities in a world of seemingly hopeless chaos. there were a number of other outstanding European philosophers in that period. exactly in the same way that he lets the characters in the novel do it. had left only Liberty and destroyed Equality and Fraternity". and this man was Dickens.which philosophical ideology did Dickens believe to be true? This may be difficult to determine. in my opinion. One of them was a German named Emanual Kant. Then one can ask oneself . . the one who found Steven. like the utilitarians. Maybe he just plainly believed in democracy. she was the final link to a world of equality and fraternity. Sissy. Of course. put most emphasis on the individual. Most of all. on real liberalism. where he does all he can to remind people of the qualities of equality and fraternity. Dickens sets out to set his countrymen straight on the issue of equality and fraternity. Reading of literature. a man set out to convince his fellow Englishmen that the world of fairy tales is not nonsense. where does that leave Dickens? Everything he lives for turns into nothing. and a focus on developing the children’s imagination to be practiced instead. therefore. he turns into a rebel." He goes as far as saying that there was one man who kept his head straight. He clearly breaks free from the utilitarian points of view. fairy tales. So Dickens sets off to serve as the mediator between the harsh world of facts and the world of equality and fraternity. the one who helped young Tom and his father. in a system that has no room for people’s imagination to explore the world with. She was the one who took care of Louisa and Rachel. Throughout many of his works focus is put on the poor and the working people of London. Dickens wanted the focus on facts and statistics in the education of children to be removed.

which are necessary for people to live in moral freedom. if one is to put him in any box of categorization at all. everyone is on equal terms and the juridical and political institutions are to secure freedom and equality for all. both concerning the novel itself and concerning Charles Dickens as a person. Therefore. and gets away with it perfectly well. Gradgrind and Mr. one interesting thing about this novel is how well Dickens manages to make a fool out of the system. but still there is a lot of Kant’s ideology present in his criticism of the system. Sissy Jupe . in my opinion. These two men are presented as authorities in the beginning. The reason why Kant has been included here is that in my opinion Dickens’ views are somewhat alike Kant’s. The ideology so strongly held together by Mr. Dickens floats somewhere between John S. Kant believed that the individual’s selfworth is essential. have been more or less discussed and answered throughout the paper. also influenced by the thinkers in his own country. It is always unfair to violate an individual’s rights. and a constitutional government. are important.but in a totally different manner. piece by piece. As mentioned in the introduction. abolishment of war. Mill’s and Kant’s ideology. 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. men to look up to. Bounderby is broken down. Instead. of course. Dickens was. 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. laws and morals are not to be determined from their best consequences for the majority of people. Which roles do the characters of the novel really play. 5 Conclusion Working with this subject of utilitarianism and ‘Hard Times’ has led to many interesting questions. the individual’s rights. and those are for example: the abolishment of slavery and other kinds of inequality.

Mr. turns out to be the most honest and warmhearted man in the novel. Sissy and Steven are there as the opposite poles. represents the system gone wrong. Gradgrind. And being in between is almost as bad as being part of the former ideology. He most certainly gets away with making the utilitarian ideology look pretty ridiculous through this novel. and a loyal "speaker" for the poor people in England. unable to realize any of her potentials. Dickens gets his most successful criticism of utilitarianism through her. 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’. hardworking man. but cannot. understanding. she never becomes whole. except Rachel. Steven Blackpool. 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. because she has been "spoiled". in my opinion. real childhood. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not Dickens was a liberal or of some other political conviction. the man who nobody took seriously. . and of course he was innocent of the crime he was accused of. turns out to curse this ideology altogether. She represents what Dickens believes to be wrong about the system – the lack of imagination. the prominent politician.1 about the end of the story and what it meant in regard to Louisa. I find Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s arguments pretty convincing and very interesting.steps in as the "stupid" little girl who knows nothing of reality. He was a strong believer in equality for all. We hear of a longing and sad young woman. But personally. she. the poor. her personality has not been given free hands to grow. who was portrayed as the perfect daughter and perfect result of the utilitarian beliefs. etc. In his opinion Dickens was an unspoilt liberal who had remained rather hopeful. the innocence is thereby killed by the system. turns out to need help from the little girl that he set out to "help" in the beginning. He dies by the hands of those who betrayed and questioned him. and it is presented very convincingly too. Louisa. compassion. the world that Louisa wants to join. From the discussion in section 3.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful