[Eran]

Daktoria,
I'm afraid I couldn't understand your post, though I would love to respond to it once I do.

Obversity,
I think you make a good point regarding act- vs. rule-consequentialism. A Hayekian perspective would contribute to the discussion. Hayek was very sceptical of the ability of central planners to possess sufficient local knowledge with which to make good decision regarding the economy as a whole. Randy Barnett (in "The Structure of Liberty") develops the Hayekian "Knowledge Problem" into a full-fledged basis for a rule-consequentialist support for libertarian private property rights.

Essentially, the idea is that, as a matter of rule (to which there may be exception in "life boat", emergency situations), respect for private property rights will allow society to best utilise personal and local knowledge regarding the proper use of resources. Barnett goes beyond the Knowledge Problem to also discuss problems of Interest (partiality, incentive and compliance) and Power (e.g. enforcement abuse) to back up his approach.

More generally, I would argue that people routinely overestimate their ability to judge the consequences of a particular act, and underestimate the complexity of the social system. That observation acts as an overall weight towards relying on general rules as opposed to detailed judgement of specific acts to achieve broadly desired consequences.

[Zerogouki]

All five pages of the thread

TL;DR

Utilitarian Ethics vs. Rights Based Ethics

I view utilitarian and libertarian ethics as fundamentally inseparable. Here's why:

Utilitarian Ethics defined here as maximizing "good" outcome while minimizing "bad." Example: under this system it would be acceptable to torture someone to gain information to save others as it would have a positive net outcome.

This would only be true if torture was a reliable method of extracting reliable information. Unfortunately, it is not, so this example fails.

Rights Based Ethics defined here as rights being constant and immutable. Example: under this system it would not be acceptable to torture said person as it would be a violation of his rights.

Most rights-based systems of ethics hold that if you violate another person's rights, you forfeit your own rights in the process. If the person being tortured has violated another person's rights, then torturing them for any reason at all is morally acceptable, and this example fails as well.

[Eran]

Yes, but utilitarians wouldn't stop at torturing a terrorist. The exact same logic would also advocate torturing the terrotist's innocent 3-year-old in order to achieve a favourable goal, such as stopping others from being killed.

Torture might not be a reliable method for information extraction, but it is not impossible to envision a scenario in which doing injustice to one person can result in much good to many others. Is it ever justified?

[Zerogouki]

it is not impossible to envision a scenario in which doing injustice to one person can result in much good to many others.

There's the problem. What guarantee do we ever have that committing a wrong against one person WILL produce a net benefit?

[MeMe]

@Rugoz

following certain rules (outlawing torture) can maximize "good" outcome overall, even if in one particular instance it does not minimize "bad". I think its called "rule utilitarianism".

This is an excellent reply. Of course the maximization of total (aggregated) utility does not make sense, since it leads to injustice. And human nature prescribes a certain degree of justice. For instance, people can not accept an undeserved inequality.

At the personal level, persons benefit by maximizing their own utility. But society can only function, when the actions of individuals are restricted by means of rules. For instance, markets are always regulated to a certain extent. Moreover, by nature the rationality of people is limited. So people need to protect themselves against their primary urges and misconceptions.

The challenge is to find the right mix of rules and liberty. In this respect the debate between liberals and communitarians is interesting. The implementation of rules must take into account the human psyche. Thus liberal paternalism can be an attractive option in some circumstances.

[MeMe]

@ Bertram

In assenssing consequences the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness is that is created; everything else is irrelevant.

This is indeed the common approach. However, she is problematic. For happiness is a state or an experience of personal wellbeing. However, the paradox is that in the long run individuals need to see some advancement in their lives. This gives them a sense of purpose and meaning to life. Unfortunately, advancements imply change and adaptation, which is a painful process for humans. Thus people need a certain degree of discomfort and pain in order to have fulfilled lives.

Perhaps the paradox can be solved by the inclusion of longterm happiness. Some models take this view, such as the Overlapping Generation Model. Here people are supposed to maximize happiness over their entire life. They may even extend happiness to the fate of their offsprings. But people are ill equiped to judge the happiness in the long run due to their actions. They seek instant gratification. Happiness seems to refer to the here and now.

[Mercenary]

Utilitarianism and Human Rights are not in conflict.

Utilitarian Ethics defined here as maximizing "good" outcome while minimizing "bad." Example: under this system it would be acceptable to torture someone to gain information to save others as it would have a positive net outcome.

Not necessarily. One could argue that a society that uses torture results in an overall loss of utility. Critics of utilitarianism tend to be short sighted.

[MeMe]

@ Mercenary

Utilitarianism and Human Rights are not in conflict.

One could argue that a society that uses torture results in an overall loss of utility. Critics of utilitarianism tend to be short sighted.

These are indeed thoughtout statements. It is certainly true that utility (or happiness, or satisfaction) and the morals must be reconciled. Note that the morals attribute rights, but also duties or responsabilies.

The problem is to give meaning to the concept utility. The majority of the classical economists tended to portray the homo oeconomicus as a greedy and egoistic individual. They were influenced by Darwin and his theory about the survival of the fittest. The neoclassical economists were less orthodox, and accepted that the homo oeconomicus can be altruistic. The idea is that he prefers altruistic acts for selfish reasons. In other words, the preferences of each individual are subjective, which implies that their rationality is limited. In this way for instance a violation of human rights can decrease the utility of an individual. And when the large majority of people rejects such violations, then the aggregate utility of the society can be affected.

The social psychology and behavioural economics support the assumption, that by nature the individuals possess social inclinations. For instance, it has been proven that individuals value justice and a degree of equality or reciprocity. The social inclinations become stronger, when they pertain to intimate associates. For instance, a torture will displease a liberal individual more, when she affects his child in stead of a religious warrior. That is to say, the individual utility depends on the fate of intimate associates.

In principle this idea is compatible with utilitarianism. For utilitarianism states simply, that each individual maximizes his utility (in the original version the society maximizes her aggregate utility, but this model does not make sense. See the thread about the utility monster). However, in practice the situation becomes naturally very complicated, when the individual utility depends on the utilities of numerous intimate associates. The attraction of the utilitarian model is that it makes individual behaviour predictable. But when the utility becomes complex and intertwined with utilities of others, then such predictions become almost impossible. For numerous selfish acts will hurt the utility of others in some way.

Let me rephrase this exposition. Of course it can be assumed that the utilitarian individual has a preference for the prevailing social morals. He can internalize them all. But in this case the behaviour of the individual is determined simply by those morals. The individual may still engage in a maximization of utility, but this act is irrelevant for the observer. Rights based ethics and utilitarism would coincide.

Utilitarianism is only a meaningful paradigm as long as a significant part of the individual preferences conflicts with the prevailing social morals (or as long as those morals, for instance with respect to torture, are absent). Summarizing, rule utilitarianism is a good find, provided that it is accepted that many personal preferences are not guided by the prevailing social norms, and may even conflict with those norms.

So at the personal level utilitarianism and the prevailing ethics (maybe even the human rights) do conflict occasionally.

[One Degree]

Very interesting discussion and mostly over my head.
I am not sure it has any relationship to real humans.
Studies show heroic acts by humans are almost always performed because someone feels part of a group.
They act to benefit a member of their community, squad, team, etc.
I believe heroic acts tell you what humans really believe is ethical. If you are willing to sacrifice your life, then you must believe it is in an ethical pursuit.
Anything that benefits their group at the time is ethical.
So, neither Utilitarian or rights based actually address how to govern.
To govern ethically requires an understanding of the group you are governing.
Edit: I realize this seemed to endorse Utilitarian Ethics, but my point is the larger the population to be governed, the less ethical the government will be due to overlapping groups. It is therefore only a valid means of governing on a local level. I believe ethical government is best achieved through local autonomy.

[MeMe]

@ One Degree

I am not sure it has any relationship to real humans.

The example of foilist13 is fairly practical. You value a society without torture, and you need information about forthcoming terrorist attacks. Can you substitute one preference in exchange for the other?

However, there are general political implications as well. Here the question is: are individual decisions based on personal happiness (utility) or on the norms within his group? When personal behaviour is guided by group norms, then the state must further the formation and maintainance of sound groups (civil society).

Studies show heroic acts by humans are almost always performed because someone feels part of a group.
They act to benefit a member of their community, squad, team, etc.
I believe heroic acts tell you what humans really believe is ethical. If you are willing to sacrifice your life, then you must believe it is in an ethical pursuit.

Indeed a herioc act neglects the personal wellbeing. Evidently it is called heroic, because the majority within his group would act otherwise.

Anything that benefits their group at the time is ethical.
So, neither Utilitarian or rights based actually address how to govern.

The heroic act illustrates that in real life utilitarianism and rights based ethics compete. It is heroic to fight for the maintainance of the group morals. It creates a role model for less ethical group members.

However, it is conceivable that the heroic act does not benefit the group. For instance, when someone prevents torture, then the group does not get access to information about terrorist attacks.

Some people argue that different utilities can be incommensurable. That is to say, the individual distinguishes between various categories of events. He values the events in certain categories so much, that he will not exchange such events in return for events in another (more mundane) category. He will not torture, even when this would yield valuable information. So people will obey the rules within the most valuable categories. Decisions are based on moral priorities, and not on a maximization of individual utility. This idea of incommensurability is a bit too dogmatic for my taste.

my point is the larger the population to be governed, the less ethical the government will be due to overlapping groups. It is therefore only a valid means of governing on a local level. I believe ethical government is best achieved through local autonomy.

In the last decades there is a tendency towards political decentralization. However, at the same time the social pluralism increases. So local autonomy may not stimulate ethical government. Probably decentralization is mainly a matter of efficiency.

It is controversial whether the government must be ethical. This is the debate between liberals and communitarians. The state can remain neutral, either by a passive attitude, or by supporting all groups on an equal basis. Or he can promote certain morals, which are believed to be superior. An ethical government can not maximize wellbeing, because the moral rules forbid certain policy alternatives (such as torturing).

[Lexington]

Wed 27 Apr 2011

The argument you're having could be old enough to be in kindergarten at this point

[Hong Wu]

There is no such thing as rights or even utility (think of the utility monster), the only reliable basis for ethics is teleology.

[One Degree]

[quoteThere is no such thing as rights or even utility (think of the utility monster), the only reliable basis for ethics is teleology.][/quote]
How can you have ethics without rights? You can argue at which level those rights exist, but they must exist or you have anarchy.

[Hong Wu]

Rights are concepts people developed to make laws easier to understand. There is no "right" to property for example, it's just easier to say there is than to explain why it should be illegal to steal. If you reason with rights as your starting point you are beginning from an imaginary position.

[MeMe]

@ Hong Wu

There is no such thing as rights

According to Webster's dictionary, a right is something to which one has a just claim. For instance, a right is the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled, or something that one may properly claim as due.

[One Degree]

According to Webster's dictionary, a right is something to which one has a just claim. For instance, a right is the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled, or something that one may properly claim as due.

All the above words I have placed in bold show that rights are simply what has legally been decided. You may as well say "the law says" as to say "this is my right".

People like to make a distinction between rights and laws which is not logical.

[Truth To Power]

Rights are concepts people developed to make laws easier to understand.

No, because laws don't even exist until needed to codify and secure rights.

There is no "right" to property for example, it's just easier to say there is than to explain why it should be illegal to steal.

The reasons why it should be illegal to steal are precisely the reasons there is a right to property. Your position is self-contradictory.

If you reason with rights as your starting point you are beginning from an imaginary position.

Rights are not the starting point, but a logical consequence of human nature. The starting point is the whole body of empirical facts about human beings.

All the above words I have placed in bold show that rights are simply what has legally been decided.

No they don't. They are invoking justice, not law.

You may as well say "the law says" as to say "this is my right".

Nope. That's the legalistic fallacy.

People like to make a distinction between rights and laws which is not logical.

It is very logical, and indisputable. If there is no difference between laws and rights, on what basis is law ever changed?

[One Degree]

It is very logical, and indisputable. If there is no difference between laws and rights, on what basis is law ever changed?

Laws are changed on the whims of who ever currently has the power to do so.

[Cocoa Jackson]

Gees a lot of people posting here who can't look beyond their own two feet. Utilitarianism is not compatible with torture and harming the innocent as then the population will live in fear that they too one day could be the unlucky ones through no fault of their own. That ain't a happy society.

And rights do exist if humans make them up in the same way money, religions and social hierarchies exist. If they can influence our lives then they have some form of existence.