Thursday, March 09, 2006
A short essay on utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a good first approximation to the right thing to do, if you happen to be a government. It ought to get you decent schools and hospitals, a reasonable welfare state and out of the sillier wars.
Unfortunately like democracy utilitarianism has no protection against the harsh treatment of a minority in the interests of the majority. For example
Chopping up prisoners for organ donation
Stopping and searching young black men in sports cars
Refusing treatment for Granny’s bad hip because she’s not going to use it for long and the money could be spent elsewhere
Suspending low achieving school children for minor offences to maintain academic standards
Taxing millionaires at 95%
Forcibly medicating people with major mental illnesses because a small proportion could be dangerous
Banning people with particular views from expressing them in public
And of course
House arrest for people you think might be connected with terrorism but against whom you have no evidence.
Utilitarians tend to claim that abuse of a minority cannot in fact fall within utilitarian principles because the unease and fear that it causes the majority stops it being for the greatest good. However it is blatantly obvious that people are remarkably good at failing to extrapolate from the treatment of groups that they don’t directly associate with. I don’t read about the policy of stopping young black men and worry that it could be middle aged white women with long hair next. For any one of those policies there is probably a good case that the end result of that single case would genuinely be the greater happiness of the greater number.
Fortunately there are so many examples, covering such a wide range of groups, that everyone can find something that they are deeply uncomfortable with as a policy. Hence the introduction of civil liberties which say, basically, "it might be for everyone else’s good but you still can’t do it". It’s a tit for tat system- I might not care about Granny’s hip (because I am callous like that) but I do care about chopping up prisoners. You might be the other way round. Neither of us might be able to win our cases on our own but we can both sign up to the general notion of civil liberties which protects both Granny and the prisoner from being a pawn sacrificed for the benefit of everyone else.
The question is not one of individual liberty vs the state but of which approach best guarantees most liberty for the largest number of people. Tony Blair
Discuss.
I am recovering from a seafood paella on Saturday evening that disagreed most forcibly. Hopefully I should at least have lost some weight :-)
One space available for a game of Dune on this Sunday afternoon/evening, just in case anyone's free.
Unfortunately like democracy utilitarianism has no protection against the harsh treatment of a minority in the interests of the majority. For example
Chopping up prisoners for organ donation
Stopping and searching young black men in sports cars
Refusing treatment for Granny’s bad hip because she’s not going to use it for long and the money could be spent elsewhere
Suspending low achieving school children for minor offences to maintain academic standards
Taxing millionaires at 95%
Forcibly medicating people with major mental illnesses because a small proportion could be dangerous
Banning people with particular views from expressing them in public
And of course
House arrest for people you think might be connected with terrorism but against whom you have no evidence.
Utilitarians tend to claim that abuse of a minority cannot in fact fall within utilitarian principles because the unease and fear that it causes the majority stops it being for the greatest good. However it is blatantly obvious that people are remarkably good at failing to extrapolate from the treatment of groups that they don’t directly associate with. I don’t read about the policy of stopping young black men and worry that it could be middle aged white women with long hair next. For any one of those policies there is probably a good case that the end result of that single case would genuinely be the greater happiness of the greater number.
Fortunately there are so many examples, covering such a wide range of groups, that everyone can find something that they are deeply uncomfortable with as a policy. Hence the introduction of civil liberties which say, basically, "it might be for everyone else’s good but you still can’t do it". It’s a tit for tat system- I might not care about Granny’s hip (because I am callous like that) but I do care about chopping up prisoners. You might be the other way round. Neither of us might be able to win our cases on our own but we can both sign up to the general notion of civil liberties which protects both Granny and the prisoner from being a pawn sacrificed for the benefit of everyone else.
The question is not one of individual liberty vs the state but of which approach best guarantees most liberty for the largest number of people. Tony Blair
Discuss.
I am recovering from a seafood paella on Saturday evening that disagreed most forcibly. Hopefully I should at least have lost some weight :-)
One space available for a game of Dune on this Sunday afternoon/evening, just in case anyone's free.
# posted by Louise H @ 9:29 am 
Comments:
<< Home
Of course you have at some point to balance an individual right against the benefit to society of restricting that right. However the individual still has that right and as a consequence you can only restrict it to the minimum possible effect consonant with the benefit you want to achieve. So if you have to, say, restrict someone's right to disclose what was discussed when they were a Ministerial secretary, then you acknowledge that they still have the right to freedom of speech and your restriction goes no further than that needed for security purposes.
Tony's view seems to be rather different. As long as the majority have their rights respected and society run for their benefit, the rights of the minority cease to become important in any way. There's no sense that each individual's rights are still a prime consideration even where they have to be curtailed to a necessary extent.
I'm not sure about medical info on the card- who is going to have access to it? Emergency services-fine. Bank- probably not.
Like you I don't object to ID cards in principle- I don't see why I should to pay for one though since they are not for my personal benefit.
Post a Comment
Tony's view seems to be rather different. As long as the majority have their rights respected and society run for their benefit, the rights of the minority cease to become important in any way. There's no sense that each individual's rights are still a prime consideration even where they have to be curtailed to a necessary extent.
I'm not sure about medical info on the card- who is going to have access to it? Emergency services-fine. Bank- probably not.
Like you I don't object to ID cards in principle- I don't see why I should to pay for one though since they are not for my personal benefit.
<< Home
