trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/17/83)
Response to Paul Torek: {RE Utilitarianism clarified, Introducing George}
I will agree that under your utilitarianism you would not have to sacrifice
anything that makes you continue to be as productive as possible, within
limits. For example, a vacation could not be justified unless you were so
worn out that you could not work well, and were in danger of losing the job
that produces the money you are giving away to the others. Nor would any
fancy food beyond what you need to get by. A car? You can carpool to work,
and why should you need it outside of work? Help your sick wife? You must
be kidding! - there are a lot worse off people in the world than her - you can
always get another wife! Why should your love for her affect any decision?
In short - you are morally allowed to keep anything that is required
to keep you alive and producing, but nothing that is just to make you
happy, so long as there are those in need of your production.
Yes, I agree with those philosophers that reject the *sacrifices* of
utilitarianism (they are *real* sacrifices - giving up higher *actual*
values for lesser ones). Again, I must ask - from what source do those
others acquire a moral right to my life? (or part of it, if you prefer
to talk in "mixed" terms) I know why I should take care of my own needs -
for my own continued existance, which is its own reward - but why should I
take care of everyone else that I could?
In reference to the two bums case - your answer merely evades the question.
I'll restate it. Suppose that the 999 most "deserving" (your own definition,
as you please) paupers come up to you and demand 1/1000 of what you have.
You *could not* morally turn them down - and this leaves you with 1/1000
of what you had before. Lest you turn that way, I will further stipulate
that you are certain that the net benefit gained from you by others over
your entire life will turn out to be the maximum from this action.
In reference to J. Carter's "Life is unfair" - life - meaning existance -
is neutral. It may be *hard*, but it has no pre-disposition for or against
any person born. The universe has no consciousness to be "unfair", with.
The world would be a better place *for whom* if the government coerced
everyone in certain ways? In fact, it will be a worse place, for those
who are to be coerced. Why do those others *deserve* to be benefited
at the expense of those who have succeeded in surviving?
Lets forget the stuff about "the only utilitarian in the universe", etc -
it is pointless. To make it easier, I will agree that if a selfish person
could do the impossible and live all lives, then anything might possible
that you might want to claim is possible. OK?
----------------
For my attitude towards K. Almquist's note, see my direct response to him.
----------------
There is probably an infinite number of "middle ground" positions. Your
argument seems to be that "if you prove this one wrong, I'll just take
another one, and keep claiming I know better than any Objectivist". Right.
I agree that there are a number of "Georges" out there - my only difference
from you on this is that I think that you may be a "George" at base also.
Can you tell me what your reason is for thinking that morality is not
arbitrary? If not, you are effectively saying "it isnt arbitrary because
I dont feel it is" - which means that your morality is based on your whim,
which is equivalent to saying "it is arbitrary", from my point of view.
I would further say that a way to describe a "George" is "One who believes
that - the only way there can be non-arbitrary morals is to have an absolute
authority that is willing and able enforce those morals - and one who does
not believe that such an authority exists". (Sorry, George, I only have what
Paul has said, to go on.)
My definition of morality is based upon the absolutism of reality - which
reality I know some of the people out there will reject - but I am hoping
that you are not one of those. The relationship that exists between
the fundamental (unchanging, necessary) attributes of a human being, and
that reality, gives rise to morality. Note that I have said nothing so
far about particular qualities of either human nature or reality.
Rather than go on from there, I will leave it at that, and let you either
agree or disagree that these are absolutes, and that morality can arise
from their relation (or conversely, arise from any other source but this.)
Tom Craver
houti!trc