- 24 Sep 2020 03:08
#15122465
True utilitarianism is impossible in the first place without some kind of perfect knowledge of the future (this is why economics assumes "rational expectations" - that knowledge of future prices is correct on average - in order to get their social utility function based models to work). In order to make a properly utilitarian moral decision you must assume knowledge of the mass of utils projected out until humanity's end when the sun consumes the earth from one action, and how that compares to the alternate mass of utils in an alternate reality until the end of time for the other action. Of course this is completely impossible, and even disregarding the problems of measuring utils, according to chaos and complexity theory, systems can be extremely sensitive to initial conditions so that in the long run the consequences of one action versus another are completely unpredictable. "Even the wise cannot know all ends" as Gandalf says.
Therefore for utilitarianism to work at all, we have to assume a kind of "best reasonable guess" as to what the long term consequences will be on collective utility. There is inherently some degree of subjectivity to this, since no one really knows. So I don't have to know that this act of torture will maximize overall utility, it just has to be my best reasonable guess.
Based on this understanding, it is entirely possible that widespread adaptation of cars "maximized overall utility" in the 40s and 50s, based on people's best reasonable guess at the time, but that decision now has to be revised with our knowledge of climate change, and now our best reasonable guess is that widespread car use does not "maximize overall utility." This could be revised yet again in the future if say, scientists discover that the earth was about to enter another Ice Age that would be far more catastrophic for life on earth, and that the global warming caused by cars is actually what saved us from this fate.
I think unfortunately, that my best reasonable guess as to the negative effects of torture is that it tends to be applied to a minority of the population - political dissidents, ethnic minorities, and so on. Therefore, even if the pain of torture is extreme and has lasting side effects, there is an inherent limit to how much effect this has on the overall mass of utils. All else being equal of course, avoiding torturing anyone would be recommended by utilitarianism since it has by itself a negative effect. But this is not so if there is a larger number of people who experience pleasure in seeing or knowing that this minority population is being tortured.
Even if I am an outside observer who is sympathetic to the minority population, if I am a good utilitarian then if I see evidence that the torture of a handful of them makes the whole population of millions of people very, very happy, then the latter outweighs the former according to my best reasonable guess of what will maximize utility for the whole collective (remember that the minority counts less than the majority in this calculation). As long as I don't see any evidence of this changing in the future. No one really knows the future, so for all I know, based on the evidence of the present which is all I have, then I am objectively forced to endorse the torture of this minority by utilitarian principles.
Again, yes there is a degree of subjectivity to this, and in reality people's judgements of what will maximize "overall" utility will tend to be self-serving. But that is all the worse for utilitarianism because then if the majority judges in favor of torture and the minority against it, each in their subjective perception of "overall", then the majority will of course overpower the minority judgement.
It is not too far of a leap to say that a utilitarian would be forced to conclude that the Holocaust maximized overall utility, when looking at the evidence of all those smiling Aryan faces. Or at the very least, they'd have to consider it for far longer than they should with any less inhuman moral theory.
My view is that utility is just one relevant factor among many when determining the morality of an action.
QatzelOk wrote:By projecting into the future, you lose all credibility as to what will be "overall" in the utility. By claiming to know the overall utilty of the torture, you are saying that you KNOW that this act of violence will NOT create more misery in the future than it will create goodness. And this is impossible to know in the present.
Cars were seen to be "overall" a good thing in the 40s and 50s, but that was BEFORE we knew all the nasty side effects of their universalization. But a previous generation thought they had established a good precedent as well. They didn't. They got humanity addicted to a poison, and torture is the same kind of poison if a society gets addicted to it (without realizing that this is something that has negatives over time and with generalization).
True utilitarianism is impossible in the first place without some kind of perfect knowledge of the future (this is why economics assumes "rational expectations" - that knowledge of future prices is correct on average - in order to get their social utility function based models to work). In order to make a properly utilitarian moral decision you must assume knowledge of the mass of utils projected out until humanity's end when the sun consumes the earth from one action, and how that compares to the alternate mass of utils in an alternate reality until the end of time for the other action. Of course this is completely impossible, and even disregarding the problems of measuring utils, according to chaos and complexity theory, systems can be extremely sensitive to initial conditions so that in the long run the consequences of one action versus another are completely unpredictable. "Even the wise cannot know all ends" as Gandalf says.
Therefore for utilitarianism to work at all, we have to assume a kind of "best reasonable guess" as to what the long term consequences will be on collective utility. There is inherently some degree of subjectivity to this, since no one really knows. So I don't have to know that this act of torture will maximize overall utility, it just has to be my best reasonable guess.
Based on this understanding, it is entirely possible that widespread adaptation of cars "maximized overall utility" in the 40s and 50s, based on people's best reasonable guess at the time, but that decision now has to be revised with our knowledge of climate change, and now our best reasonable guess is that widespread car use does not "maximize overall utility." This could be revised yet again in the future if say, scientists discover that the earth was about to enter another Ice Age that would be far more catastrophic for life on earth, and that the global warming caused by cars is actually what saved us from this fate.
QatzelOk wrote:The other weakness in the "overall"ness of torture, is that it obviously doesn't consider the side effects on the torture-victim or other humans of his class or race. Nor did the car industry consider the "overall"ness of their product - a kind of torture for our public roads.
Profit is made by shrinking what "overall" refers to. If a group of railway barons decide to genocide the First Nations, and they all agree with this plan, they can think that their plan is "overall" good because of how they have defined "overall." "Everyone in the room agrees, so it's overall good."
I think you will realize you are doing the same thing with torture if you think about how it could possibly be used for "overall" utility.
I think unfortunately, that my best reasonable guess as to the negative effects of torture is that it tends to be applied to a minority of the population - political dissidents, ethnic minorities, and so on. Therefore, even if the pain of torture is extreme and has lasting side effects, there is an inherent limit to how much effect this has on the overall mass of utils. All else being equal of course, avoiding torturing anyone would be recommended by utilitarianism since it has by itself a negative effect. But this is not so if there is a larger number of people who experience pleasure in seeing or knowing that this minority population is being tortured.
Even if I am an outside observer who is sympathetic to the minority population, if I am a good utilitarian then if I see evidence that the torture of a handful of them makes the whole population of millions of people very, very happy, then the latter outweighs the former according to my best reasonable guess of what will maximize utility for the whole collective (remember that the minority counts less than the majority in this calculation). As long as I don't see any evidence of this changing in the future. No one really knows the future, so for all I know, based on the evidence of the present which is all I have, then I am objectively forced to endorse the torture of this minority by utilitarian principles.
Again, yes there is a degree of subjectivity to this, and in reality people's judgements of what will maximize "overall" utility will tend to be self-serving. But that is all the worse for utilitarianism because then if the majority judges in favor of torture and the minority against it, each in their subjective perception of "overall", then the majority will of course overpower the minority judgement.
It is not too far of a leap to say that a utilitarian would be forced to conclude that the Holocaust maximized overall utility, when looking at the evidence of all those smiling Aryan faces. Or at the very least, they'd have to consider it for far longer than they should with any less inhuman moral theory.
My view is that utility is just one relevant factor among many when determining the morality of an action.