dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/14/83)
From Tom Craver (trc@houti.UUCP) on utilitarianism:
If I understand your position, you are saying that one holds all
people, including one's self, inherently worthy of equal concern, but
that one then decides on the basis of who, individually, has the
greatest need.
Yes, basically. In addition to greatest need, there is the question of the
agent's ability -- overall, the goal is to choose those who can be helped
the most, even if they are well off to start with. If I'm not sure that
feeding the starving will be effective (Garret Hardin has argued that it's
not), then perhaps I should help my close friends, since I know much better
what they need.
So why *should* he give higher consideration [his wife] than the others?
Or to other people who need the benefits even greater?
I don't think he should, if he can help others even more, and if this
difference outweighs the side-effects of not helping his wife. (Those side
effects could be considerable -- it might end the relationship.) However,
I'm a utilitarian, and this is where other "middle-grounders" will part
company with me; so if you find this unacceptable, please don't think that
all middle-grounders will agree with this. See my next note, "introducing
George."
If you truly accept this philosophy, you have the choice of living
immorally, or of sacrificing until the either you are brought down to
the level of the worst off person in the world, or they are brought up
to meet your level. Since the worst-off persons in the world are
dying, you would have to try to save their life, at any expense, up to
losing your own life. (And since you wont really feel it is fair that
anyone else get away with not helping out, you will accept that "people
should sometimes be coerced to benefit others" - sound familiar?)
It shows insight for you to see this far, and others (including the
Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer) have said the same -- however, it is
not correct. Actually, I have to try to save lives at considerable expense
(time, effort, money), but not to the point of endangering my own life.
That would be just plain inefficient -- you see, I'm just too valuable; most
of that value is due to the fact that I will continue to save (or improve)
lives as long as I'm alive and healthy. Sorry if that sounds conceited, but
if you think about it, it's really quite the opposite.
Some philosophers have pointed to the "sacrifices" required by
utilitarianism, and condemned it by saying, in effect, "look what you
utilitarians would require of the poor little moral agent -- let's all feel
sorry for the moral agent, for what the mean old utilitarian moral theorist
puts her through." I think the flaw in this argument is that it only looks
at one side of the moral equation. We're supposed to feel sorry for the
moral agent, but ignore the experiences of those she helps.
As for fairness: as Jimmy Carter said, life is unfair. I would support
government taking from the rich and giving to the poor, not because I envy
non-utilitarians or feel unfairly treated, but because it would make the
world a better place if everyone was coerced in certain ways.
However, you would have to sacrifice to the gang that *needed you most*
- who would benefit more from your sacrifice than you benefit from not
sacrificing. For example, two bums could approach you and demand 1/3
of your possessions for each of them, leaving you with the same amount
as them. Morally, you could not turn them down, because you would be
doing it out of equal concern for their welfare.
Well I sure could turn them down, knowing that there are other people who
could use my money better.
You state that it is the summation of good of others that Utilitarians
base their actions upon... This seems to be in contradiction with your
statements in a previous notes that you are a utilitarian, and that
you agreed with my statement that you meant "each other individual's
needs deserve equal concern", rather than "concern for the sum of all
other individuals' needs is equal to your own." I agree that your
latest statement is more consistent with what I understand of
utilitarianism, so I'll assume you prefer that - but you should clarify
this if possible.
I state that it is the summation of good of everyone (self and others) that
we base our actions upon. Each other's welfare is weighted equally with the
agent's -- just add them together.