Utilitarian or Side Constraint Rules?
In his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick lists two types of moral rules: utilitarian rules and side constraints. Utilitarian rules are basically end goals that a person or society must reach. For example, there may be a moral rule which says that society must achieve the greatest amount of good possible. In this system, rules and institutions are implemented which lead to this end, which is seen as the moral goal to aim for. The other type of moral rules are side constraints, which are not concerned with the end goal of their implementation, but rather those actions themselves. For example, a side constraint may be ‘do not murder’. This would be a side constraint moral rule if you implement that not looking at what would be the consequences of not murdering people. Murder would be considered bad, whatever the consequences may follow, even if murder increased the happiness and prosperity of a nation or group of people.
My question is, which of these two types of moral rules are correct. As in, are there intrinsic flaws or inconsistencies in one of these lines of thinking? I would contend that the utilitarian line of thinking does.
First of all, in order to implement a utilitarian moral rule, there are actions which lead up to the end goal. Like, you could have action X lead to Action Y, which leads to Action Z, which then leads to the end goal being achieved. But there is a problem with this, and that is that when we perform Action X, we are not able to look into the future and know what Action Y and Z will be, because people have free will. If a person performs Action X, hoping to get to the end goal, there is no way to know if the end goal will be achieved through this action. If people have free will, then the future is variable. Action X could lead to other actions by the same person or others which lead to the end goal being achieved, or it could also not. The future can’t be predicted with physical laws, assuming free will.
In addition, I think that there are problems with many utilitarian goals, like the greatest good. For example, if a politician says that we will fight some war, or implement some regulatory measure, because we want to achieve the greatest good, there are two problems I see with this. First, how do we calculate the greatest good? If we calculate this, we must assign numerical values to actions. For example, we should say that a murder is worth -10 goodness units, or something like that. Maybe charity is worth +4 goodness units. As far as I know, nobody does such calculations.
Also, to calculate the greatest good, we also need a time frame to calculate it in. Time goes on forever, or far into the future, as far as we know. If we want to calculate the amount of good and bad that results from something, we will need to calculate this for until the end of time. This would require infinity calculations.
What do you think? Feel free to agree or disagree in the comments section below.
[...] My question is, which of these two types of moral rules are correct. As in, are there intrinsic flaws or inconsistencies in one of these lines of thinking? I would contend that the utilitarian line of thinking does. Read More [...]
Yahya,
It sure is good to see a post from you. I hope this is a long-term relationship and you will post often. Thanks for such a great article.
Your hypothesis may have flaws in it but lets see what we have based on what you say. I will take these in random order since my screen is small and my eyes are bad. I will take it from what I see and then move up or down the article.
I would like to address the idea of time first and see if we cant get something to work. There is a thing in metrics called the diminishing return. This is where you do certain actions but at some point the return of those actions are less then when you first do them. For instance, you have a group of two people doing work for eight hours a day. These people are fully occupied for those eight hours and you reach peak efficiency in them.
Now you want to get the same results but in four hours time. Theory says you double the people and the time will decrease by half. But that is not the case. Since you were already at efficiency level, you will decrease the time but not by half because you injected inefficiency into the equation. Now you have four people, but not all four are busy 100% of the time. Half the time half of the people are not working so you will be done in six hours instead of four and you have wasted resources one quarter of the time.
Likewise, diminishing returns go the same way in the opposite direction. So if your people are operating at peak efficiency for eight hours per day and you extend the hours to 12 hours. The other four hours they are not at peaked any longer. In your example of time you would not need to figure out time infinitely but only to where you reach the maximum result. Beyond that time would be diminishing returns and thus the numerical value you use would decrease rather then increase. The moment it decrease below usability you stop and new paradigms need to be considered.
Since utilitarian goals are supposed to measure usability, you should be able to assign numbers to them. Anyone with a modicum of Quality Assurance under their belt could help you figure this out if you have historical tables that indicate action/results. So while it might be done now, it certainly could be accomplished.
You also mentioned the unintended consequences. Those are not known if the action is being done the first time. However, if the action was done previously, some results are known and can be planned for if the action is to be undertaken again. This goes well with the theory that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Your example of murder probably is a bad one because law can define murder and have different degrees of murder. Murder in the first vs. murder in the second. You probably could have used the word kill to get your point across more easily. So if we did not kill the murder for his actions then we would need to lock him up, but as you say: if we don’t look at that then what?
So, we finally get to your question. Which of the two moral rules are correct? This actually is simple. If force or fraud was initiated then it is bad. If it is voluntary then it is good. Voluntary cooperation between consenting individuals will always maximize the good. The moment you inject force or fraud into the equation you decrease the goodness.
voluntary = good
coerced = bad
perhaps this simple dichotomy can be used as a tool to get libertarian ideals across.
Yahya,
Awesome, Nozick is throwing up the U haha.
So, you feel the Utilitarian framework is flawed because 1) Free will limits predictability of desired results from earlier actions, 2) There is no way to measure utilitarian objectives, 3) Time frame.
Well, I don’t see how these critiques are wrong, you make a strong case for them. Utilitarianism is always an anti-libertarian framework.
Jonathan,
Doesn’t our government practice a form of utilitarianism with its welfare systems and subsidies?
You say “Utilitarianism is always an anti-libertarian framework.” So, wouldn’t that mean it is, even for the ones that can be found in some way or fashionable means as to be authorized by the constitution.
Utilitarianism is the worst kind of package dealing concepts. It is a perversion of rational, objective thought.
Utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the greatest number, is a theory of morality and economics formulated by Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill. Although there are different types of Utilitarianism (Rule and Law), I’m going to be pointing out the general flaws of the system of Utility.
First: Utilitarianism would allow for slavery and other such evil practices. You see, if we are simply looking at what is best for the most people, 51% of the population could justify enslaving or using the other 49% is such a way. This not only violates the means-ends standard of the Categorical Imperative, but it allows for a total disrespect of human rights.
Second: Current theories of Utilitarianism provide no practical way to measure what is “good.” This perverted concept asks for the greatest good, but when different people find different things to be good, the task of figuring out the greatest good is simply impossible and force is ALWAYS the eventual end.
Third: (this one is similar to #1) Utility disrespects dignity because it doesn’t recognize the individual. As John Rawls says in A THEORY OF JUSTICE, “the striking feature of the utilitarian view of justice is that it does not matter, except indirectly, how the sum of satisfaction is distributed among individuals.” In other words, since the distribution of happiness does not matter, only the amount of happiness, grave human rights violations can be justified! As long as the happiness overall is great, some people can suffer!
Fourth: Utility is irrational. According to Rawls, “A rational man would not accept a basic structure merely because it maximized the algebraic sum of advantages irrespective of its permanent effects on his own basic rights and interests.”
Fifth: One cannot always see all the consequences of his actions, yet Util asks us to make decisions based on end results. (Another reason deontology is just better than teleology…)
Sixth: the Hedonistic Fallacy- Utility tries to derive what ought to be from what is.
Seventh: Each person can define his own definition of happiness.
Utility is often disguised as “the common good,” “societal welfare,” or “societal happiness.” Don’t be fooled. Utilitarianism is a flawed theory: recognize it. I encourage anyone reading this to add to my list of flaws. I’ve only named the biggies. I’m sure there are plenty more that I can’t think of at the moment.
respectfully,
Darren,
I agree with the idea that it is a flawed concept especially the way it is interpreted by society. However, maybe I should take Jonathan’s role as devils advocate just looking at some of your comments and seeing what we really have. I want to try this as a matter of exercise and see where it leads.
In doing such I will use your own explanation of utilitarianism. The definition as stated was the greatest good for the greatest number. I will attempt to apply some Libertarian philosophy behind it to see if the flaw remains.
The main Libertarian philosophy we hold is that no one will initiate the use of force or fraud to get what they want. In this case, if we apply it, no one will initiate the use of force or fraud in your examples.
Your first example uses force or fraud to create slavery. You cannot have slavery without force or fraud, we all know this and so it won’t be argued. However, since we are talking about the GREATEST good for the GREATEST number, I have to ask what is the good of those that are free that is being attained. If that good is not being offered to the 49% that are slaves then how have you reached the greatest number (i.e. the second half of the equation)?
In order to reach the same good for the GREATEST number you would need to make it voluntary. For instance, one could have butlers to do the slave work in the house and gardeners to do the slave work in the filed etc. Voluntary servitude is totally different then slavery. By doing this you eliminate the force of slavery, you get rid of the 49% and you move into the realms of the spreading that good to 100% of the people.
So, by applying the non-aggression philosophy you have eliminated the “bad” part of your argument and have actually moved closer toward utilitarianism as defined above.
Your second argument is true since no one has taken the time to do it yet. We discussed in an earlier comment with Yahya on how it can be done. That remains true as well. It simply needs someone to apply it if we wanted to actually measure anything. I do not think anyone wants to do that but that doesn’t mean it cannot be done.
Your third argument (similar to the first) was also addressed in the similar to the first response I but here. By getting rid of the force or fraud, the dignity comes back into play and negates your point. After all, the 49% slaves are no longer slaves and therefore would be happy like the other 51%. That is, assuming happiness in your argument here was the goal of the “greatest good” in your first argument.
Your forth argument, when applying the non-aggression principle is flawed to a tee. If the non-aggression principle is applied then the rights and interests are taking the HIGHEST priority and therefore would be very rational.
The “cant see” argument cannot be argued. It is true that one cannot see what will happen. One can only learn from past experience and postulate what might happen in the future because of those actions. There are certain things that you can be sure of. I mean, if you pull the trigger of a loaded gun that goes off and the bullet hits someone in the head, we can pretty much be assured that person will die. Whether you go to jail, another family member kills you in retaliation or you get away with it etc is all unknown. So yes, even though you can prepare for some things that might happen, the complete effect and the resultant consequences are not always known.
When applying the non-aggression policy you can eliminate most of those questions regarding the initiation of the use of force or fraud because they would not happen. That still does not eliminate consequences of the unseen. For instance, I could be a scientist working to create something that would be a great help to society but in doing so I inadvertently caused an explosion and burned down several houses and killed some people in the process.
The question then comes, even though we cannot know the consequential results of our actions, when applying the non-aggression principle, do we increase the greater good for the greater number of people. By virtue of the fact that we eliminate the fraud and force involved the answer would be yes.
I don’t understand your sixth argument. Is there anything other then “what is” at the current moment? If the inventor wanted to build something (what ought to be) can he do it from anything other then from “what is” right now? Sorry, I must be thick headed on this one; I just don’t see any sense in the argument. To me, it sounds like you are against reality.
Your seventh argument escapes me as well. I mean, if I am applying the non-aggression principle what is wrong with each person defining his own happiness. Hell, don’t we already do this even though we are not in a utilitarian society? After all, what happiness is to you is not necessarily the same as it is for me. So what is the point of this argument?
While looking at your arguments, I have applied the non-aggression principle and eliminated the problems you discuss. In doing so, instead of moving away from the definition of utilitarianism, I have actually moved us closer to it; since we are now gaining greater good for greater numbers of people. How is this irrational or perverted again?
Jonathan,
You play the devil’s advocate role quite well. In keeping with that role, how would you have approached Darren’s comments? Would you have gone down the same path I took or a different one?
JimK,
Thank you for your “devil’s advocate” position. It is a very convenient vehicle to overlay your viewpoint concerning a non-aggression principle, unfortunately, this is not a common view held under a utilitarian concept. By utilizing, a “Libertarian Ideal” you have effectively eliminated a Utilitarian ethic therefore you have not gone to the heart of the arguments, but simply evaded them.
You state: “The main Libertarian philosophy we hold is that no one will initiate the use of force or fraud to get what they want. In this case, if we apply it, no one will initiate the use of force or fraud in your examples.” There is nothing keeping anyone from initiating the use of force under a Utilitarian ethics. Utilitarian ethics would justify force or fraud if the goal were stated in such a way that it was for the good of society.
You state: “If that good is not being offered to the 49% that are slaves then how have you reached the greatest number (i.e. the second half of the equation)?” Greatest good is an abstraction so the theory reduces everything to a simple majority i.e. 51%, therefore under this rational slavery could be an accepted end if there were a 51% majority.
Argument # six is a famous concept postulated by Hume which states “the is-ought problem was articulated by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
An “is-ought fallacy” is committed when you try to infer an “ought” from an “is”. This is the main justification for most atrocities in a utilitarian framework of morality or ethics. Again, the “ends justify the means” concept rears its ugly head. Force and fraud naturally stem from this premise.
Argument # seven should be self evident in the fact that most people justify behavior on the ideal of their own happiness, but there are no moral limitations with regards to how their happiness impacts others (like what a true Libertarian ethics demands) as their own happiness is an end that justifies the means. In addition, the problem arises when an individual defines happiness in contradiction of the society as a whole. Who then wins, and who therefore prevails. There will always be a confrontation with goals, individual against society, in this package dealing concept.
Respectfully,
Darren,
I think you missed the point of my comments. The point was to show that under the current use of the definition it is flawed because it will never achieve its goal. If utilitarianism is to be the greatest good for the greatest number, the greatest number should be 100% of the people. You cannot have any greater number than 100%. I did NOT eliminate utilitarianism and its ethic; I reached it. By applying Libertarian principles I have achieved the goals of utilitarianism that current users fail to achieve.
I do understand that Libertarian principles are not a common view held under the utilitarian concept – THAT – is the flaw, which I was pointing out. Under the current way that utilitarianism is viewed and practiced, they never try to reach their stated goal. They simply STOP once they hit a simple majority. Those who practice and preach utilitarianism do not take it to its ultimate goal. They stop at the simple majority because that’s what achieves the result they are looking for…NOT…the ultimate goal of true utilitarianism.
By applying Libertarian principles one would achieve a greater number then a simple majority. The comments were provided to show that this would be the case. As such, with Libertarian principles applied we actually move closer to true Utilitarianism. Not the misguided framework that is used now.
I also understand that nothing keeps one from applying force or fraud as utilitarianism is applied today. Again, by doing so you do not reach the “greatest good for the greatest number”, you just get to the simply majority. Even if you use the force for the “good of society”, it would be wrong because you missed the other half of society. You missed the stated goal of utilitarianism, however, applying libertarian principles you can reach those goals.
When you say greatest good is an abstraction you, like all the people who try to use utilitarianism as justification, miss the entire point of it. Words have meanings. The meaning of the greatest number stops at 100% not 51%. Are you trying to tell me that 51% and 100% are equal? If you are then you’re an idiot. I happen to know you are smarter than that so think before you write such garbage.
AGAIN – the point of the comment was to show the flaw with the current use of utilitarianism. All you have done here is repeat the BS of what and how utilitarianism is misused based on misguided ideals. You did it in the article and you are doing it here in your response. This does not negate anything I said.
In your argument 7 rebuttal you say there are no moral limits. There are, those limits stop when you cross the boundaries into someone’s property. That is, assuming, you want to reach the greatest good for the greatest number. You are working in a vacuum when you present this argument because you are still stuck on the simple majority rather then the greatest number. The conflicts will cease to exist and the greatest good, greatest numbers goal will be reached if you apply Libertarian principles.
If you really wish to negate what I said then prove that applying Libertarian principles does NOT create the greatest good for the greatest number.
Whats up guys,
sorry, i had a lot of work to do and i just got finished with it.
“If utilitarianism is to be the greatest good for the greatest number, the greatest number should be 100% of the people. You cannot have any greater number than 100%.”
Here, Jim, you were talking about Darren’s argument. you got the greatest number part, but you forgot the other part, the greatest good. I think what Darren is saying is that in your system, everyone gets some good. Like, you are saying that 100% of people are doing their jobs voluntarily and stuff, so they all benefit to some extent, while in Darren’s example, only 51% of people are becoming happy and benefiting. This may be true, but what Darren is saying is that if those 51% of people, by enslaving the other 49%, achieve so much happiness that it is more than in the system where all 100% of the people achieve some happiness, then by utilitarian ethics it would be justified.
“Since utilitarian goals are supposed to measure usability, you should be able to assign numbers to them.”
Here, Jim, you are talking about measuring utilitarian goals. I don’t know much about usability, I was talking about subjective value. Like, if you produce a house, certainly you can measure the length and width of the house and so on, but you can’t measure the subjective value of the house to a person. In addition, different people may value the house differently.
“You also mentioned the unintended consequences. Those are not known if the action is being done the first time. However, if the action was done previously, some results are known and can be planned for if the action is to be undertaken again.”
Well, if you do the action repeatedly, you may come up with some plan to deal with unintended consequences or results. But the point I was trying to make was that due to the free will of human beings, the future cannot be predicted with certainty, as it can be if everything ran according to the laws of nature.
In addition, if you have some utilitarian goals to reach, which, suppose the government decides to pursue, it must then criminalize some behaviors which it sees as being detrimental to reaching the end goal, without knowing that those actions actually don’t lead to the end goal. Repeated testing and learning from experience do not solve this intrinsic problem, due to the problem of free will.
“Voluntary cooperation between consenting individuals will always maximize the good.”
If I was a betting man, then I would certainly place my bets on the side of a free society versus some kind of command economy in terms of reaching more happiness, but I don’t think economic laws are the same as physical laws. Physical laws cannot be broken, as far as we know, but economic laws can be.
anyway, just my opinion, later
Yahya,
In talking about your first paragraph here, in that case if I took it to the extreme, then the greatest good for the greatest number would be me as king and every single other person in the world is my slave. Your argument cannot have it both ways. If you are using it to slide down the scale from 100% to 51% – then keep sliding down to 1 person. Does your argument hold water as it continues down past the 51% mark? If not, then it does not pass the consistency principle.
If you use your argument to go up from one person to 51%, then keep going until you cover all 100% of the people. Does your argument hold water? If not it does not pass the consistency principle.
Any argument that does NOT pass the consistency principle is flawed on its face. That does not apply to just mine it also includes yours and Darren’s. Come up with an argument that will go to both extremes and you will have a winner. I did it while applying Libertarian principles.
When you start talking about the 51% vs. the 49% then you are going back to my original point in my first comment to you about reaching a point of diminishing returns based on the simple majority. Lets take your theory and apply it do see what I mean. Lets say there are 100 people all having a good called happiness. Now each person has one happiness. To maximize what you say, 51 people gain control of the other 49 peoples happiness. So we have 51 people with nearly happinesses and 49 people with zero of them.
You said I missed the other side of the equation, but in fact I did not. You simply didn’t recognize where I had it. Here is the flaw with reasoning you presented. There were a maximum greatest number of happinesses – 100 of them. There were a greatest number of people as well, 100 of them. While you still have the greatest number of happinesses covered you don’t have the greatest number of people covered you only have 51% of them covered.
I did. I had all the happinesses (all 100 of them) AND all the people (all 100 of them) covered. So just where did I miss it when I had the greatest possible happiness (100) and the greatest number of people (100) covered?
It is not my misapplication of the utilitarian principle that has the flaw. It is the misunderstanding of its correct application that you and Darren are using to bring about your flawed version.
Jim,
First, here is how I understand the phrase ‘greatest good for the greatest number’: if you add up all the happinesses of all the people in the world, you get the maximum possible total happiness that is possible. In that case, if you have 100 people, then take two scenarios:
Scenario 1: one person the master and 99 slaves. The 99 slaves have zero happiness and the one person has 1000 happiness units
Scenario 2: all 100 people equal, and all have 5 happiness units. In this case, total of 500 happiness units.
In this case, from my understanding, scenario 1 would be the greatest good for the greatest number. that’s how i understand that phrase, but let me know if i’m wrong.
in the example in your last comment, you gave everyone either zero or one happiness. but to me it seems that happiness is graded, in that if we were able to measure it somehow, we could have no units, 1 unit, 2 units, 1.3454 units, etc.
I’m not denying that the free market would probably make most everyone happy, as compared to enslaving people. But none of this was the point of my article. I was simply saying that the ethics of end goals seems to have intrinsic logical flaws in it, and that any ethical system which does not follow logic is inaccurate.
Yahya,
Over time you can measure usability. Yes different people value houses differently. But the value they assign to it is known, if only to them at this point. This can be measured if someone took the time to do it.
Regarding the “future”, I have already agreed that you cannot prepare for all the unintended consequences and such. While some preparation can occur, you will never reach 100%. There is no way to predict the future with a 100% accuracy rate. I do not argue that you cannot prepare 100% of the time, even if you do repeated testing. The moment you inject a different variable, you have cause for a different outcome. If you want to attribute that to free will because you injected another person into the equation, I am ok with it.
When you are talking about economic laws, I assume you are talking things like “supply and demand”. These cannot be broken. You might try to manipulate them by force but they cannot be broken. They will always straighten themselves out even if years later. The government has tried for many years to manipulate the economy and it has failed ruthlessly at it. Price increases, inflation, bubbles, burst, booms, busts etc. They are all happening because those laws CANNOT be broken.
Yahya,
In your example you are comparing apples and oranges. In the first scenario you had 1000 happiness units, in the second you had 500 happiness units. Change your second scenario to have 1000 happiness units. So you end up with
Scenario 1: one person the master and 99 slaves. The 99 slaves have zero happiness and the one person has 1000 happiness units
Scenario 2: all 100 people equal, and all have 10 happiness units. In this case, total of 1000 happiness units.
As for your article, I agreed with it. Since it was talking about the way utilitarianism is applied. Misguided as it is.
I just tried to give some things to consider in my first comment to solve some of the flaws you pointed out. Then Darren went on to his comment and I couldn’t let that sit – LOL. I had to play devil’s advocate. It was too much left out there not to give it a try. Now I am glad that I did, if I hadn’t these other things might not have come out in the conversation.
Back to your question, now that we made the happiness units equal in both scenarios, apply your utilitarian principle, as you understand it. Which would be better?