Utilitarian Ethics vs. Rights Based Ethics - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13526116
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.

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.

In this thread I simply wish people to express their viewpoint and why. Discussion into the specific scenario is encouraged.
By eugenekop
#13526120
The problem with purely utilitarian ethics is that people don't like the prospect of living in a country in which they might be arbitrary tortured or killed. Would you want to immigrate to such country?

I think that in general "rights based ethics" is more useful, and it works very well in all democratic countries. Do you have an example in which a "rights based ethics" doesn't work, except the extremely rare cases of torturing to get information or other unlikely dilemmas?
User avatar
By SecretSquirrel
#13526196
Rights based ethics is the only system of ethics. Utilitarianism has nothing to do with ethics or respect for others, it is just about using people for whatever purpose you need while minimizing blowback.
User avatar
By foilist13
#13526207
That's not so true. Let me put it to you this way,

You have a gun. There is a small child in front of you. By shooting the child, 10 children elsewhere will be saved. If you do not kill the child, the other children will die, but you will not be the one killing them. A Rights Based system would not allow you to kill the child while a Utilitarian would demand that you do. Most people I've posed this question to would say the ethically right choice would be to fire your weapon.
User avatar
By SecretSquirrel
#13526237
Who are you to decide who lives or dies?

The only ethical solution to such a challenge is agnosticism - "not to play"

Anyone who would commit murder in order to further a goal, even a "good" or "noble" goal, is a PSYCHOPATH
By eugenekop
#13526266
You have a gun. There is a small child in front of you. By shooting the child, 10 children elsewhere will be saved. If you do not kill the child, the other children will die, but you will not be the one killing them. A Rights Based system would not allow you to kill the child while a Utilitarian would demand that you do. Most people I've posed this question to would say the ethically right choice would be to fire your weapon.


As I said, these are extremely rare and unlikely dilemmas which may constitute an exception, and you are not going to build a society on exceptions. Please give us a more common dilemma, because otherwise its just a theoretical exercise, nothing else.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#13526349
To SS:

It is funny , how you , a libertarian negate utilitarian views (Your ideology is based on it) and go for Rights Based Ethics aka Justice as fairness aka Social justice :eh:
User avatar
By Rugoz
#13526430
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.


I think this is an absurd view of utilitarian ethics, 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".

What exactly is "Rights Based Ethics"?
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#13526492
Rugoz wrote:I think this is an absurd view of utilitarian ethics, following certain rules (outlawing torture) can maximize "good" outcome overall

I agree; if it were apparent that having laws such as capital punishment produced a greater net detriment to the populace's well-being, for example by creating a dissonance between the "state" and the "people" and so upping paranoia or depression, then it would be within utilitarian ethics to not have capital punishment.

Apologies for the rather long sentence.
User avatar
By Melodramatic
#13526499
I disbelieve in the distinction, all ethics are Utilitarian to some level. ethics called Utilitarian are usually just short sighted.

also the term is deontological, not rights. rights can be very Utilitarian.

eugenekop wrote:I think that in general "rights based ethics" is more useful, and it works very well in all democratic countries.


This for example is Utilitarian logic, despite being pro deontological policy.

JohnRawls wrote:It is funny , how you , a libertarian negate utilitarian views (Your ideology is based on it) and go for Rights Based Ethics aka Justice as fairness aka Social justice :eh:


deontological libertarianism is unsurprisingly deontological.
User avatar
By SecretSquirrel
#13526889
libertarianism is not deontological or utilitarian, seeing as how libertarianism is political philosophy and not an ethical framework.

Some libertarians justify libertarianism on utilitarian grounds, and others (like me) on deontological grounds.
User avatar
By foilist13
#13526959
eugenekop wrote:As I said, these are extremely rare and unlikely dilemmas which may constitute an exception, and you are not going to build a society on exceptions. Please give us a more common dilemma, because otherwise its just a theoretical exercise, nothing else.


Fair enough. You own a trucking business. You ship food for a large supermarket chain. You are tasked with shipping a large amount of food from one place to another, but in the process you pass through Haiti. You have the option of stopping and dispensing all the food and in so doing save many lives. The supermarket chain could stand the losses without batting an eye, though they would not be terribly happy about it. The only thing stopping you is the fact that you do not have a right to the food. (Assume for this scenario that you will not get caught.)
By lucky
#13526986
foilist13 wrote:Fair enough. You own a trucking business. You ship food for a large supermarket chain. You are tasked with shipping a large amount of food from one place to another, but in the process you pass through Haiti. You have the option of stopping and dispensing all the food and in so doing save many lives. The supermarket chain could stand the losses without batting an eye, though they would not be terribly happy about it. The only thing stopping you is the fact that you do not have a right to the food. (Assume for this scenario that you will not get caught.)

I see some issues with this scenario, or the way you describe it:

1. What does "I will not get caught" even mean here? I mean, if I don't fulfill the order, I won't get paid. Presumably somebody is waiting for the shipment. But OK, let's assume that somehow I will pretend that the order got delivered and they will believe me and pay me.

2. What does "could stand the losses without batting an eye" mean? Clearly they will have a loss. I assume it means that the chain executives and owners will not be crying much about the loss, since it's a small percentage of all the other operations of the same chain. But the cost is there regardless. I think you're injecting some of your world-view assumptions here - you're thinking of a rich guy getting a little less in his coffer with no other ill effects. But to me, it doesn't really make sense - a cost increase means higher consumer prices. Also to me it doesn't really matter whether the same chain has other operations or not - the extra cost is the same regardless.

In any case, my answer is: no, I would not steal and deceive the business partner that way for my own humanitarian purposes. But I don't think it reflects the kind of philosophical questions this thread aims to answer. I don't think I even understand the issue ("utilitarian" vs "right based" ethics) - I just have some goals in life and make decisions with those goals in mind.

For this specific scenario the goal of theft and deceit seems to be to feed some hungry people, lowering the suffering in the world that way. I simply don't think the strategy being suggested is a good way to achieve that goal. I think honest business cooperation is a better approach than covertly stealing stuff. Such dishonest behavior has bad repercussions that outweigh the few mouths fed. In short - the lack of trust would greatly increase the cost of transporting food, which works against the goal of proving food to hungry people.
User avatar
By foilist13
#13528771
Ok, forget that scenario as well. Let's take something real world that has been repeatedly attempted and proposed.

Is the forcible redistribution of wealth al-la proletarian revolution morally justifiable? As a utilitarian I could say yes (without this descending into a debate about the merits of communism), but as a rights based moralist I would most certainly say no.

Opinions?
User avatar
By ex-rep
#13528907
Trying to free a person from a burning vehicle at great risk to self when you are almost certain the person will not survive is contrary to utilitarian ethics, yes? The moral worth is determined by the outcome? The end justifies the means. Euthanasia, and sterilization of those who are weak, degenerate, or less desirable are acceptable actions under utilitarianism. Who determines utility? Most of these -isms can work fine in a controlled experiment. In practice they must be able to hold up to the peculiarities and prejudices of real people: people who will do all manner of outrageous things in the name of the common good.

Forcible redistribution of wealth. In a society that was formerly structured a different way, or in a society that was set up from the get go to operate on that principle? Are we talking about mob rule thrust upon a society wherein the multitude of have-nots justify theft by raising it to the level of policy? Is that better than the haves taking from the have-nots? It's okay if the spoils are going to the many? I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a corporation having identity independent of the shareholders. An "us" that takes on an identity beyond and above you and me is similarly unsettling. It's a false construct that removes accountability and allows for abuses under a curtain of anonymity.

Rights based ethics all the way, IMO.
User avatar
By SecretSquirrel
#13528982
ex-rep wrote:Rights based ethics all the way, IMO.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#13529049
Rights based ethics all the way, IMO.


All rights are based upon utilitarian reasoning.

Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God


lol, great contradiction
User avatar
By ex-rep
#13529108
Rugoz wrote:All rights are based upon utilitarian reasoning.
What's good for the parts is good for the whole. I don't think this is commutative.
By Bertram
#13569406
Utilitarianism is a bit more complex than that. There are two kinds of Utilitarianism, Jermemy Bentham's Introduction of morals and legeslation, outlines a a type of utilitariamism where the pleasures and pains are assinged values based on their weight. This is known as Felicific calculus.
....
But I just wrote a 13 page ethics paper based on all of this so you can do some looking up yourself.
John Stewart Mill was a follower of Benthemian principles, disagreed with Bentham's use of math, and istead of focusing on quality of the quantitiy of pleaseure, he focused on the quantity of the quality of pleauers.

Don't use the world bad. The proper words are goods and evils, (Or pleasures and pains if specifically reffering to Jeremy Bentham.)

You should refind you example because torture is inefective for gathering reliable information.

You would be quite interesting in Immauel Kant's Categorical imperative.
That seems to be focued more on your right's based ethics.

The first premise is that a person acts morally if his or her conduct would, without condition, be the "right" conduct for any person in similar circumstances
The second premise is that conduct is "right" if it treats others as ends in themselves and not as means to an end.
The conclusion is that a person acts morally when he or she acts as if his or her conduct was establishing a universal law governing others in similar circumstances.

Basicly
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
I'll discuss more later. I've been up for 30 hours after writing a 14 page ethics paper. Night
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#13569868
John Rawls wrote wrote:Many social decisions are, of course, of an administrative nature. Certainly this is so when it is a matter of social utility in what one may call its ordinary sense: that is, when it is a question of the efficient design of social institutions for the use of common means to achieve common ends. In this case either the benefits and burdens may be assumed to be impartially distributed, or the question of distribution is misplaced, as in the instance of maintaining public order and security or national defense. But as an interpretation of the basis of the principles of justice, classical

utilitarianism is mistaken. It permits one to argue, for example, that slavery is unjust on the grounds that the advantages to the slaveholder as slaveholder do not counterbalance the disadvantages to the slave and to society at large burdened by a comparatively inefficient system of labor. Now the conception of justice as fairness, when applied to the practice of slavery with its offices of slaveholder and slave, would not allow one to consider the advantages of the slaveholder in the first place. As that office is not in accordance with principles which could be mutually acknowledged, the gains accruing to the slaveholder, assuming them to exist, cannot be counted as in any way mitigating the injustice of the practice. The question whether these gains outweigh the disadvantages to the slave and to society cannot arise, since in considering the justice of slavery these gains have no weight at all which requires that they be overridden. Where the conception of justice as fairness applies, slavery is always unjust.

I am not, of course, suggesting the absurdity that the classical utilitarians approved of slavery. I am only rejecting a type of argument which their view allows them to use in support of their disapproval of it. The conception of justice as derivative from efficiency implies that judging the justice of a practice is always, in principle at least, a matter of weighing up advantages and disadvantages, eachhaving an intrinsic value or disvalue as the satisfaction of interests, irrespective of whether or not these interests necessarily involve acquiesence in principles which could not be mutually acknowledged. Utilitarianism cannot account for the fact that slavery is always unjust, nor for the fact that it would be recognized as irrelevant in defeating the accusation of injustice for one person to say to another, engaged with him in a common practice and debating its merits, that nevertheless it allowed of the greatest satisfaction of desire. The charge of injustice cannot be rebutted in this way. If justice were derivative from a higher order executive efficiency, this would not be so.

But now, even if it is taken as established that, so far as the ordinary conception of justice goes, slavery is always unjust (that is, slavery by definition violates commonly recognized principles of justice), the classical utilitarian would surely reply

that these principles, as other moral principles subordinate to that of utility, are only generally correct. It is simply for the most part true that slavery is less efficient than other institutions; and while common sense may define the concept of justice so that slavery is unjust, nevertheless, where slavery would lead to the greatest satisfaction of desire, it is not wrong. Indeed, it is then right, and for the very same reason that justice, as ordinarily understood, is usually right. If, as ordinarily understood, slavery is always unjust, to this extent the utilitarian conception of justice might be admitted to differ from that of common moral opinionnnn. Still the utilitarian would want to hold that, as a matter of moral principle, his view is correct in giving no special weight to considerations of justice beyond that allowed for by the general presumption of effectiveness. And this, he claims, is as it should be. The every day opinion is morally in error, although, indeed, it is useful error, since it protects rules of generally high utility.

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]