Bryan Caplan has a recent post that is critical of utilitarianism:
One argument against utilitarianism is that no one actually follows it. I call this the Argument from Hypocrisy.
(Bryan’s objection is almost equally true of Christianity. “Turn the other cheek”. Seriously?)
I’m not sure if utilitarians are hypocrites, and even if they are, that fact has no bearing on the question of whether utilitarianism is true (i.e. useful.)
A utilitarian like me would say that the world would be a better place if everyone acted in such a way as to boost aggregate happiness. It’s not always easy to know exactly what actions would accomplish this goal, but it’s plausible (as Bryan assumes) that the utilitarian ideal calls for more charitable giving than actually occurs. (Due to incentive effects, the optimal amount of giving is difficult to estimate.)
If a utilitarian like me gives less than the optimal amount, Bryan counts that as evidence against utilitarianism and in favor of hypocrisy. I’m not so sure.
Suppose I claimed that eating fewer desserts would lead to better health. Then someone spots me wolfing down a tub of Ben and Jerry’s. Here are two questions:
1. Does that observation disprove my claim that consuming less ice cream would benefit one’s health?
2. Does it make me a hypocrite?
My answers are no, and probably not.
My eating habits have almost no bearing on the truth status of the claim that ice cream is bad for you.
Hypocrisy is harder to define. If I scolded my daughter for eating ice cream, then my own consumption might be considered hypocrisy. But if I simply observed that eating less ice cream would boost each person’s health, including mine, I don’t see the hypocrisy. My dad (a smoker) used to say that smoking is bad for one’s health. Was he a hypocrite?
I believe the world would be a better place if many people, including me, gave more to charity. Bryan counts the lack of sufficient charitable giving by utilitarians as evidence of the wrongness of utilitarianism; I count it as evidence that people like me are selfish. I see selfishness as being a far more plausible interpretation of the evidence, as compared to “charity is not actually a good thing”. (BTW, I’d like to believe that I’m wrong, that the world would not be a better place if I gave more money to starving kids in a poor country—then I’d feel less guilt.)
A better objection, though, is that even highly scrupulous utilitarians don’t comply with their stated principles; I call this the Argument from Conscience. In Governing Least, Moller powerfully develops a parallel objection: While utilitarians often urge self-sacrifice, they rarely preach other-sacrifice. But given their principles, they totally should!
If I’m right that selfishness is the problem, then we should not be preaching an unrealistic level of altruism to others. Doing so would lead to accusations of hypocrisy. Instead, we should praise those who go out of their way to help others, say by donating a kidney to a stranger. I’m certainly not going to scold someone for not doing something that I’ve never done (kidney donation), but I’d be happy to praise an acquaintance that engaged in this sort of unusually altruistic act.
Bryan’s post also considers the issue of violating rights, in order to achieve a utilitarian goal (Bryan is quoting Moller):
The only views left on the table at this point are precisely those that are willing to contemplate that, at least in some circumstances, rubbing out Grandma and stealing from our children is the right thing to do. The problem, then, is that most people don’t seem able to accept even that they ought to aspire to such behavior, let alone engage in it.
This is where “rules utilitarianism” is so important. It may be the case that the world would be better off without white supremacists marching through your community, but because we cannot trust governments to decide where to draw the line we have decided that it is better to have a blanket policy of free speech, precisely for utilitarian reasons. Similarly, while stealing money from an affluent acquaintance and redistributing this money to the poor might be beneficial in a particular case, a world where this was frequently done would be much less happy, as interpersonal relations would fall apart. Love is what binds people together.
Similarly, there are very good reasons for making theft from strangers illegal, even where the recipient of the funds would enjoy them more than the victim. Indeed I recall Gary Becker once arguing that the real cost of theft is not the money stolen (that’s just redistribution), it’s the resources employed to prevent theft from occurring.
My debates over utilitarianism often go like this:
Critic: Utilitarianism implies people should do X in situation Y. That would lead to a nightmarish society.
Me: You are not thinking holistically enough. You need to go beyond the direct effect of doing X, and consider the broader ramifications on society. Activities that create a “nightmarish society” are almost certainly not creating a happier society. For instance, if hedonism leaves one with a sickness in one’s soul, then it’s not making you happy, is it? So stop blaming utilitarianism for bad ideas.
Critic: But if you define utilitarianism that broadly, then it’s little more than a tautology.
Me: You are thinking about it in the wrong way. Utilitarianism shouldn’t be seen as a guide to living; it is a guide to public policy. You wouldn’t use a snow shovel to sip a cup of soup; you’d choose a delicate spoon. Don’t use utilitarianism as a guide to day-to-day life; it’s too blunt an instrument. Instead, see good films and read good literature (including religion, if you are so inclined).
Utilitarianism should be used to advocate drug legalization, carbon taxes, ending occupational licensing, more immigration, less zoning, NGDP level targeting, school choice, and a 1000 other public policy reforms. That’s what it’s for. Maybe someday we’ll find a better goal for public policy than “maximizing aggregate happiness”, but so far we have not done so.
READER COMMENTS
Swami
Apr 20 2019 at 12:33pm
Another point on utilitarianism is that it is extremely open to parasitism and free riders. As such, the best rule for utilitarians is not optimizing universal utility, it is optimizing utility for those agreeing to be utilitarians. On a larger scale, this of course incentivizes everyone to be utilitarians as the benefits can exceed the costs. Thus the general rule of freedom for anyone to join the group, with benefits to all who agree to play by the rules.
Scott Sumner
Apr 20 2019 at 12:42pm
Or perhaps “the best rule for utilitarians is not optimizing universal utility, it is optimizing utility for those agreeing to be utilitarians” with the long run goal of optimizing universal utility.
robc
Apr 20 2019 at 7:07pm
Sounds good. I get free banking, you get targeted NGDP growth. I got Coasean bargaining, you get a Pigovian carbon tax. I think for the rest deontology and rule utilitarianism lead to the same place.
Airman Spry Shark
Apr 20 2019 at 1:27pm
Perhaps the best rule for utilitarians is to stop advocating utilitarianism because it’s likeliest to be misapplied by converts in a way that actually reduces aggregate happiness; I personally find deontological prescriptions to be a reasonable proxy for rules utilitarianism.
Dylan
Apr 20 2019 at 2:02pm
I’ve often tried to express the same sentiment by saying that I want my politicians to be utilitarians, even if I don’t personally consider myself one. Utilitarianism seems the best kind of pragmatic approach to public policy that I can imagine, even if I don’t think it would get to the “right” answer 100% of the time.
As to the criticism from Moller’s book, the quote from Bryan seems to imply that he thinks he has already effectively dealt with the “rules based utilitarianism” which is of course hard to evaluate without knowing what his arguments are, but thought it was worth mentioning.
BC
Apr 20 2019 at 2:10pm
If properly applying utilitarianism requires thinking holistically and going “beyond the direct effect of doing X” to consider all the long-term ramifications across society, then is that approach really more “useful” than a deontological one? That there are many examples of unintended consequences of well-intentioned policies, policies where the direct effect seemed to increase utility narrowly but not broadly, suggests that thinking holistically is hard. In principle, one might think that developing a small set of rules about right and wrong that lead broadly to happy societies might also be challenging. However, our experience with natural rights rules like, “Don’t kill grandma,” and “Don’t steal other people’s property,” seem to have worked pretty well. Isn’t part of the usefulness of an approach, the ease in which it can be applied to formulate policy?
If “rules utilitarianism” needs rules, at least as an heuristic guide to avoid narrow misapplied utilitarian-seeming policies that actually produce broadly negative utilitarian outcomes, then is “rules utilitarianism” really a consequentialist approach or a rules-based one? Aren’t the rules the critical components that lead to the desirable outcomes?
Scott Sumner
Apr 20 2019 at 3:46pm
BC, I believe the more useful distinction is between the concept of “natural rights” and useful rules that further utilitarian aims.
KevinDC
Apr 20 2019 at 5:21pm
When utilitarianism is criticized for seeming to suggest awful actions, the most common response is to suggest that utilitarianism actually doesn’t make those suggestions if you use it in a proper “big picture” sense. Hence the argument that while act utilitarianism might suggest unsavory course of action A, a more sophisticated rule utilitarianism actually suggests the much more palatable course of action B. I’ve never found this to be a convincing response.
Classic example – a doctor has one perfectly healthy patient, and five who need organ transplants or they’ll die. The doctor could kill his healthy patient, and use his organs to save the other five. Thus, it is argued, utilitarianism sucks. But wait, say the utilitarians. When you think about it, if doctors are allowed to kill their patients to harvest organs, that will have all kinds of larger impacts on society. People will live in fear and might just stop going to the doctor altogether, costing even more lives (or life years). So a bigger picture rule utilitarianism says as a rule, don’t have doctors kill their patients, even if they can save more lives in specific acts of doing so. Hooray!
This always struck me as dodging the hypothetical. When we use thought experiments, the whole point is to suggest a simplified model that strips away all complicating factors, so we can focus on and isolate the specific issue we’re trying to discuss. The point of this thought experiment isn’t to guide medical policies in the real world. The point is to examine the idea “the right course of action is determined entirely by increases in total utility” to see how well it holds up. Scientific experiments work on the same principle – you set up conditions where you control for every other variable (as best you can) in order to measure the one specific phenomenon you’re looking for. If you tried to criticize a highly controlled scientific experiment by protesting the controls and saying “But real life never looks like that,” this would totally miss the point. The fact that the experiment controls for all other factors doesn’t undermine the reliability of the conclusion – it enhances them!
So consider this modified doctor thought experiment. Suppose there was a collection of strictly utilitarian doctors who were worried about the systemic effects of killing their patients for utility enhancing organ transplants. But suppose they were brilliant enough, and committed enough, that they could manage to do it under the radar, without detection. They would falsify records to explain the death of the harvested patients, they would do it rarely enough to not raise suspicion, they would cover for each other by providing medical explanations for each other and corroborate each others work. The end result is that large numbers of lives are saved, nobody ever discovers that this is going on, and all of the potential downsides are avoided. According to utilitarianism, in this circumstance, not only is it good that the doctors are killing their patients – it would be wrong if they refrained from killing them! I know, this kind of conspiracy would be impossible to maintain in real life, but don’t dodge the hypothetical! Even if you’re convinced this would never work in real life, if you’re a utilitarian, you’re committed to saying that if things could be made to work out this way, then it would be a good thing. Yet I’ve never found a self professed utilitarian who would sign off on this. They almost always go back to describing reasons why you wouldn’t be able to pull this off in real life. And their attitude when describing why it wouldn’t work is always one of “Luckily, in real life, things wouldn’t work out like that.” But by a utilitarian reckoning, why is it lucky that it wouldn’t work out? I’d be more convinced if they said something like “I wish it was that simple, and if I could wave a magic wand that would make the world work out that way, I would do it without hesitation, but unfortunately that won’t actually work the way things are right now.”
Matthias Görgens
Apr 21 2019 at 5:20am
I bite the bullet: I’d sign off on that.
KevinDC
Apr 20 2019 at 5:33pm
One additional thought – I suspect a deeper disagreement between myself and Scott is found in his statement “I’m not sure if utilitarians are hypocrites, and even if they are, that fact has no bearing on the question of whether utilitarianism is true (i.e. useful.)” I think this is a serious conflation. Truth and usefulness are not interchangeable concepts. How useful something is says nothing of its truth, and vice versa. I’m reminded of a comment G. H. Hardy made about his work discovering new theorems while studying pure mathematics, saying something to the effect that none of the work he’d ever produced was in any way useful and it had no real world applications. But it would be very strange indeed to suggest that his theorems were therefore untrue on that basis.
I’m also reminded of something Jason Brennan said about a possible objection to utilitarianism that’s contrary to Scott’s. In this case, someone could criticize utilitarianism for being useless – suppose the real world is just so fiendishly complicated, unintended consequences are so rampant, and counterfactuals so inscrutable, that utilitarianism was unable to provide any actionable guidance on how to behave. According to Brennan (and I agree), this would completely fail as an argument against utilitarianism:
robc
Apr 20 2019 at 7:19pm
My problem with rules utilitarianism is the same as my problem with macro economics, too much aggregation of things that shouldnt be aggregated, whether happiness or demand.
James
Apr 20 2019 at 11:03pm
All of the objections to utilitarianism are essentially the same: Utilitarianism entails false conclusions.
If utilitarianism is true, then any act is not just permissible but obligatory if some person or group enjoys it enough to outweigh any negative results. Ask a utilitarian if a car theft is immoral and the answer really should be “It depends on how much the thief and victim each valued the car.” If the thief valued the car more than the victim then there was a Kaldor-Hicks improvement and the car theft a good thing. No one actually believes this but this is how utilitarianism works.
Okay, maybe utilitarianism only works for policy. For example, prohibition is great public policy so long as the people who favor it get enough satisfaction from the drug war to offset the dissatisfaction of those who are victims of the drug war.
Even worse, a utilitarian must admit that there are actually two utilitarian solutions to bad public policy: repeal the policy OR change people’s thinking so that they get sufficient enjoyment from it. If the enjoyment people get from that policy increases enough, then getting people to like the bad policy becomes the superior choice in terms of maximizing utility. Again, no one actually believes this but this is what utilitarianism entails.
Rules utilitarianism only avoids unpalatable conclusions by insisting on arbitrary limits to how granular the rules may be. Once we consider rules such as “Never accept a rule when some other rule leads to even greater utility,” rule utilitarianism degenerates into act utilitarianism.
Scott Sumner
Apr 21 2019 at 1:39am
James, You said:
“If the thief valued the car more than the victim then there was a Kaldor-Hicks improvement and the car theft a good thing. No one actually believes this but this is how utilitarianism works.”
No it’s not, and I explained why in my post. If you don’t like my explanation, then explain why. But if you simply ignore my explanation and act as if you didn’t bother to read the post, then I’ll draw the natural conclusion.
James
Apr 21 2019 at 10:25pm
My example of the car thief is exactly how utilitarianism works. To be clear, I’m using the term “utilitarianism” as it was defined long ago by people not named Scott Sumner. I’m sure you did not suppose you could defend utilitarianism by insisting the rest of the world embrace some new definition that you came up with.
To be fair, what you actually believe is probably something more reasonable than utilitarianism. You should reconsider that label if you do not want to be encumbered by the baggage that rightly goes along with it.
But here is a test to see if you are a utilitarian: Like any policy option, dictatorship has both winners (the dictator and his cronies) and losers (the subjects). Can it improve the situation if the dictator is able to persuade the people to find sufficient enjoyment in being his subjects? If you say yes, you are a utilitarian or else you are not.
Scott Sumner
Apr 22 2019 at 1:55pm
James, Your first comment did not respond to the specific point made in my post. This comment does not respond to my reply. It appears that you not understand the purpose of comment sections.
Scott Sumner
Apr 21 2019 at 1:46am
Everyone, Utilitarianism is a criterion for public policy. What would get me to change my mind and abandon utilitarianism? Simple, give me just one example of an actual plausible public policy (not a bizarre hypothetical) that would be justified under utilitarianism that is actually a bad policy. Just one example. It should not be difficult. One example of a policy that would make the world a happier place that is actually a bad policy. If utilitarianism is such a bad idea, those policies should be easy to find. Until I see such an example I have no reason to abandon utilitarianism.
As far as deontological reasoning, I don’t see how that gets us very far. What does it tell us about the optimal tax regime, for instance. I’m certainly open to persuasion on that point, but I just don’t see it.
Gene Callahan
Apr 21 2019 at 2:55am
“Simple, give me just one example of an actual plausible public policy (not a bizarre hypothetical) that would be justified under utilitarianism that is actually a bad policy.”
Well, Scott, since *every single policy that has ever been proposed* has been at some point or other justified on utilitarian grounds, unless you think every single policy proposal ever is good, you’ve got tons of examples.
The problem is that the supposed “utilitarian calculus” can’t even get an inch off the ground: the supposed “numbers” that go into the “calculus” are simply made-up nonsense to justify whatever policy one already wanted to back. This utilitarian rubbish had already been refuted in the 19th century, only a few decades after it had been advanced. You are… on the wrong side of history!
Scott Sumner
Apr 21 2019 at 2:15pm
Gene, You missed my point. I’m not asking for policies that have been falsely claimed to met the utilitarian criterion, I’m asking for policies that actually do pass muster, but are still bad ideas. I’d like examples.
robc
Apr 21 2019 at 3:35am
“Taxation is theft” tells you a lot about the optimal tax regime.
The above is a deontological principle I hold except with regard to ownership of naturally occurring property (primarily, land), so I am okay with the Georgist argument for the Single Land Tax.
And then using deontology to argue for the optimal tax rate is easy: the rate that extracts the economic rents from the unimproved land.
My back of envelope calculation says the state at all levels would have to shrink by 85-90 percent.
Scott Sumner
Apr 21 2019 at 2:19pm
robc, “Taxation is theft” is a perfect example of what’s wrong with that approach. If you took that claim seriously then you’d oppose all taxes. That’s why I prefer utilitarianism; it generates good ideas such as carbon taxes.
Getting rid of the Fed may or may not be a good idea, but you still need a monetary policy, unless you favor barter. You might advocate the government do nothing. But if the Canadian government did nothing then Canadian citizens would adopt the US dollar. I doubt that’s a good idea.
robc
Apr 22 2019 at 7:49am
If I had my way, the Canadians wouldnt be able to choose USD. They could choose from BoA Dollars and Chase Dollars and BBT Dollars and Utica Hours and many others. I bet most Canucks would settle on Canadian Tire.
And I am not sure you read my post completely. I clearly made one exception to the taxation is theft statement.
There are two reasons I dont say that. First because I have to footnote that there is an exception. Second because it sounds stupid.
But that doesnt make it any less true as a moral principle.
And finally, to complete my wall of text, I will expand on my comment above about aggregation. I am more nomic (hey, if people can believe in the social contract, I can have my stupid origin story) in approach to government. An aggregate increase in happiness isnt enough, I need unanimity.
Is there a unanimity utilitarianism that is a step up from rule utilitarianism?
Scott Sumner
Apr 22 2019 at 1:59pm
robc, If you really believe that taxation is theft, then I don’t understand how you can claim that some taxation is not theft. Or is your claim that some taxation is justified theft? It’s not clear to me what you are arguing. Are you make a pragmatic argument against taxes, or a principled argument?
Suppose I claimed “Taking something from someone without permission is theft unless it’s a starving man stealing an apple from the tree owned by a farmer.” What would that even mean? Isn’t the person actually arguing that some theft is justified?
robc
Apr 22 2019 at 2:46pm
I thought I was pretty clear, both times.
I think all forms of taxation except taxation of natural resources is theft.
I don’t think it is theft only because I don’t think there is a natural right to land ownership, therefore it cannot be stolen. Land ownership is merely a useful fiction. You (not me) might even say it it a utilitarian position.
robc
Apr 21 2019 at 3:47am
1 easy example: NGDP targetting. I think you are 100% right about this as the best policy for the Fed to pursue.
The right deontological policy to pursue is getting rid of the Fed altogether.
Another example that popped into my head is the draft for WW2. Not sure where rule utilitarians come down on that, so it might not be a good example (and note I was being specific to WW2, not in general).
Kris
Apr 21 2019 at 6:05am
There are many examples.
Freedom of speech should include making people on net unhappy. For example, should we allow caricatures of religion? Yes we should — how many people it makes unhappy is irrelevant.
Are we maximizing total happiness or average happiness? Both lead to absurd policies about population ethics (forcing people to have many more children, or killing certain people).
This will probably be a disagreement between us. I think redistribution is unjustified even if raises happiness (as it uses the wrong means — coercion).
And yes, the bizarre. Utilitarianism, taken seriously, does lead to things like burning a witch if enough people get happiness out of it. Ordinary morality of course says the opposite: you should never burn someone alive (for being a witch), no matter how much happiness other people get from it.
Scott Sumner
Apr 21 2019 at 2:20pm
Kris, You think places without freedom of speech are happier? Seriously?
BW
Apr 21 2019 at 10:25pm
Denmark and Switzerland seem like happy countries. In fact, given that holocaust denial is illegal in nearly all of Europe, and Europe contains the majority of the world’s happy countries, there are plenty of happy countries that don’t have free speech (i.e. they don’t pass the white supremacist test mentioned in your post). There are also plenty of unhappy countries that don’t have free speech; and the United States is a happy country that has free speech.
Scott Sumner
Apr 22 2019 at 2:02pm
BW. It’s misleading to argue that countries where 99.999% of political speech is free are more similar to countries where most political speech is not free than to countries where 100% of political speech is free.
Scott Sumner
Apr 22 2019 at 2:03pm
BTW, I never argued that countries without free speech cannot be happy.
BW
Apr 22 2019 at 4:50pm
Scott, you’re right. I was using a binary definition of free speech, and that’s misleading. If it helps to clarify the argument, let the relevant policy be hate speech laws in particular. The fact that there are countries with hate speech laws that still have 99.999% free speech contradicts the utilitarian argument against hate speech laws that you made in your post. And more to the point, hate speech laws pass the utilitarian-approved-bad-policy test you mentioned. The Danes and the Swiss are happier than Americans, have hate speech laws, and their hate speech laws, on net, contribute to — rather than detract from — that happiness. But hate speech laws are bad policy because they infringe on people’s rights to engage in peaceful, non-rights-violating behavior.
Scott Sumner
Apr 23 2019 at 11:44am
BW, Well it’s certainly possible that these laws make Danes happier and are also unjustifiable. But I see no reason to believe either claim.
Kris
Apr 23 2019 at 12:18pm
On the margin – quite probably (as BW pointed out). But since we can’t measure happiness in any serious way, does that make you agnostic on most (marginal) free speech issues? After all, the ‘happiness’ evidence is rather thin on the ground.
Scott Sumner
Apr 24 2019 at 1:15pm
Kris, Not agnostic, but certainly I view the issue as debatable. I personally am happier with free speech, and most people I know feel the same way. So I lean in that direction. Certainly we do not know enough about happiness to justify laws banning free speech.
James
Apr 21 2019 at 10:39pm
In a sufficiently racist society, Jim Crow laws are the utilitarian policy because of how happy those laws make the racists. No matter how broadly or how far out into the future you consider the consequences, you are only changing how racist the society needs to be for Jim Crow laws to be the optimal policy. Once you go utilitarian the only question is exactly how racist that society has to be.
How is your reply to Gene anything other than a “no true Scotsman” fallacy?
Scott Sumner
Apr 22 2019 at 2:05pm
James, You said:
“In a sufficiently racist society, Jim Crow laws are the utilitarian policy because of how happy those laws make the racists.”
That’s false. No matter how racist the society, the harm done by these laws will exceed the gains to the racists.
KevinDC
Apr 22 2019 at 4:50pm
Scott, you said ” No matter how racist the society, the harm done by these laws will exceed the gains to the racists.” Umm…how do you know? That seems like an empirical question. It’s certainly not one that can be just assumed a priori, unless you want to indict yourself for a textbook case of question begging.
Scott Sumner
Apr 23 2019 at 11:53am
Kevin, We don’t “know” anything at all for certain. All our beliefs about moral questions are based on our best understanding of the situation. I concede that it’s theoretically possible that racist laws improve aggregate happiness, I just think it’s very unlikely that that’s the case. I’m a utilitarian because my best judgement is that a Venn diagram showing wise public policies and also policies that boost happiness will precisely overlap. If someone presents me with an example where that seems wrong, then I’ll stop being a utilitarian. But I have yet to see such an example. I can’t even imagine why one would have any other goal for public policy, any goal other than boosting aggregate happiness.
Instead people present examples of policies that seem to reduce happiness and then ask me what I’d think of those policies if they actually boosted happiness. What kind of question is that?
KevinDC
Apr 23 2019 at 3:37pm
Scott, at first you said:
This is a statement that doesn’t seem to leave any room for nuance. But when I asked how you knew it was true, you said:
First of all, this is a drastically different statement than the first. And second, I don’t think the situation you’re describing is so far fetched, at least not at all times in all societies. Human being have shown themselves capable of being incredibly tribalistic and capable of deriving great satisfaction from dominating the “other.” And in many societies, the unfortunate minority that serves as the “other” can, to a large degree, internalize the idea that they are in fact lesser and deserve to be in a subservient position. It’s pretty highly unlikely to occur in the modern U.S. – but the idea that there are no societies that currently exist (or could plausibly exist in the future) which would fit that description seems highly dubious to me.
Well, it’s a question designed to test whether you truly believe that “boosting happiness” really is all that matters. It’s testing to see if you’re willing to say “It’s theoretically possible that racist laws can make a society happier on net. While I think it’s extremely unlikely to ever be the case, if there ever was an example of a society where it worked out that way, then I think racist laws would be good.” And if you’re not willing to say that, despite all the caveats and qualifications – why not? I know my answer to that question. Racist laws aren’t wrong just because they make people unhappy – although I would say the unhappiness they cause compounds the wrongness.
Scott Sumner
Apr 24 2019 at 1:27pm
Kevin, You have a very different view of the English language than I do. When someone makes a point blank claim, I never assume they hold that belief with 100% certainty, as that would be insulting. Most people are not that stupid, they know there is always some uncertainty. So I see no contradiction in the two quotes you provide.
I intentionally refrain from commenting on how I’d feel about bad things if they actually boosted human happiness, as the reason I currently view them as bad is that they reduce human happiness. Thus I oppose racism precisely because it reduces human happiness, and for no other reason. Perhaps someone could convince me that there is some other reason I should care about racism, but I’d like to see the theory before commenting on how I’d feel about that alternative objection. There’s always going to be ambiguity as to what you are commenting on, the reality or the hypothetical. I know how to separate the two, but 99% of people on twitter would not know how, and would misinterpret anything I said.
James
Apr 22 2019 at 11:01pm
Scott, you write: “No matter how racist the society, the harm done by these laws will exceed the gains to the racists.”
Full disclosure: I think utils are bunk but let me speak utilitarian for a minute… If the total cost to society from Jim Crow laws is X utils but the racists in that society derive more than X utils of satisfaction from having Jim Crow laws, then a utilitarian has no choice but to admit that in that particular society, Jim Crow laws are the optimal policy.
If you do not recognize some point at which you would say “The racists in this society enjoy racist policy so much that Jim Crow laws are worth it even after considering all of the negative consequences of Jim Crow laws.” then you are not a utilitarian.
Why is it so important to you to call yourself a utilitarian?
Scott Sumner
Apr 24 2019 at 1:29pm
James, It’s not “important” at all. It just seems sensible, as I judge public policies on the basis of whether they boost aggregate happiness. When I stop doing so, I’ll stop calling myself a utilitarian
Phil H
Apr 22 2019 at 2:02pm
I’ll bite on this with successful genocide. I suggest that in a society that is sufficiently divided (and it wouldn’t have to be very divided), a decision to systematically wipe out the other group, successfully executed, and expropriate their wealth, might lead to a better utilitarian outcome.
Obvious examples of where it’s been tried: North America – this to emphasize that this is a realistic example.
The utilitarian payoff would come in the increased happiness over new resources among the victors, with no decreased happiness among the dead, because they’re now dead.
Scott Sumner
Apr 22 2019 at 2:09pm
Phil. I’m willing to concede that the settlement of America by Europeans might have boosted total happiness, despite unfortunate side effects such as the spread of European diseases. But I also don’t believe it was a bad idea for this settlement to occur.
Having said that, some of the specific acts committed by whites against the native people were wrong, and also reduced aggregate happiness.
Gene Callahan
Apr 21 2019 at 2:43am
“A utilitarian like me would say that the world would be a better place if everyone acted in such a way as to boost aggregate happiness. It’s not always easy to know exactly what actions would accomplish this goal…”
Um, no, Scott, it is absolutely, always, 100% completely, ludicrously impossible to know what actions would accomplish that goal.
Plus, there if utilitarianism is true, there is absolutely no reason why I should care about “the world being a better place” rather than my own utility.
Gene Callahan
Apr 21 2019 at 3:04am
I apologize for the extra “there” in the above post!
Scott Sumner
Apr 21 2019 at 2:27pm
Gene, There are very good reasons why you should care about the happiness of others, it’s the right thing to do. And I obviously disagree that we can’t know whether public policies increase happiness. Obviously people make mistakes, but we also learn from our mistakes. Surely in retrospect it’s overwhelming likely that Hitler did not increase European happiness. Surely the German people learned something from that sad episode in their history. Do we know whether the Chinese Great Leap Forward boosted happiness? I think we do.
If you demand 100% certainty, then there is no basis for action under any criterion. We can’t be certain that any approach to public policy is correct, including deontological approaches. We must always rely on what approach seems best, taking into account all that we know about the world.
KevinDC
Apr 21 2019 at 8:45am
Scott, I think part of the reason you’re getting so much push back on utilitarianism is that you’re using the term in a very odd way. Your statement “Utilitarianism is a criterion for public policy” seems to highlight the problem. No, it’s not. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that says the morality is defined by increases in utility. There are disagreements among utilitarians about whether it should be average vs total utility, or behavior should be guided by act vs rule utilitarianism, etc, but the idea that utilitarianism means “criterion for public policy making” is just a very odd definition. To slightly rework something Scott Alexander once said:
If you feel like people critical of utilitarianism are talking past your arguments, I would suggest to you that it’s because you’re using that word to describe something completely different from what everyone else means by it.
However, I must admit to being a bit flabbergasted by this:
This is, to put it mildly, a very odd question for a utilitarian to ask. If you’re a utilitarian, asking for an example of a policy that is both “justified under utilitarianism” and also a “bad policy” isn’t an invitation to further discussion – it’s literally incoherent. If utilitarianism is true, then there can be no such thing as a policy that is both justified under utilitarianism and also a bad policy, by definition. By your own lights, this should be as nonsensical as being asked to give an example of a circle with corners. To a utilitarian, “bad policy” is just a different way of saying “a policy that isn’t justified under utilitarianism,” so your question should seem meaningless to you. But you don’t seem to think your question is meaningless, because you’re saying just one example of such a policy is all it would take to make you abandon utilitarianism. This only makes sense if you think “good policy” and “bad policy” actually do in fact mean something different from “passes or fails according to utilitarianism.”
I don’t want to discourage that. I fully agree that “good policy” means something different from “justified under utilitarianism” – which is why I’m not a utilitarian. But you can’t justify or defend utilitarianism by saying “I’m a utilitarian because utilitarianism suggests good policies.” This would just boil down to saying “I’m a utilitarian because utilitarianism suggests the policies that utilitarianism suggests.”
Scott Sumner
Apr 21 2019 at 2:43pm
Kevin, You misunderstood both of my points. I agree that it’s possible to eat soup with a snow shovel, it’s just not a very good idea. I agree that one can use utilitarianism to guide you through day to day decisions about things, I just don’t think it’s very useful. Speaking for myself, I’m too selfish to do so. The theory is useful when applied to public policy.
My point about bad public policies that are justified under utilitarianism is a reaction to critics who offer absurd examples. They say, “Suppose doing this obviously horrible thing would make the world a happier place”, when it clearly would not do so. I want them to provide examples that actually would make the world happier, but are nonetheless wrong. Let me give you an example.
An anti-utilitarian might say, “Kidney markets would save lots of lives, but they are still wrong because the turn humans into a commodity.” Fine, then we can have a real debate. I’ll defend kidney markets on a happiness basis and someone can oppose me with deontological arguments on the other side.
Instead, opponents provide absurd examples like, “Suppose slavery added to the happiness of the slave-owner by more than it reduced the happiness of the slaves”. How can I even argue with such an absurd claim, other than to say “Obviously it would not.”
I want to debate plausible issues where utilitarians differ from other belief systems, like kidney markets, not false examples that play on peoples’ emotions. People hate slavery precisely because it causes human misery, thus saying “suppose it didn’t” asks us to contemplate something we are unable to imagine.
Scott Sumner
Apr 21 2019 at 2:48pm
Kevin, You said:
“But you can’t justify or defend utilitarianism by saying “I’m a utilitarian because utilitarianism suggests good policies.””
Sure I can–that’s exactly why I’m a utilitarian. For me, good policies seem like those that boost aggregate happiness. I can’t see any other reasonable criterion. Then (later in life) I sit down in a philosophy course I discover that other people who feel the same way are called “utilitarians”. So I say to myself, “Then it looks like I’m a utilitarian too”.
KevinDC
Apr 21 2019 at 4:12pm
Scott –
At the risk of seeming to talk past each other, I feel like you’ve misunderstood me too 😛 But to recap a few key points –
It still seems like you’re conflating “true” and “useful.” I argued before that the two concepts are not interchangeable – appeals to utilitarianism being more or less useful in particular circumstances say nothing about whether or not utilitarianism is true. Saying utilitarianism is more useful for public policy than for individual decision making does nothing to actually defend the truth of utilitarian claims.
Also, when I said “you can’t justify or defend utilitarianism by saying “I’m a utilitarian because utilitarianism suggests good policies,” I was arguing for something different than what you seem to be responding to. Let me try again.
Utilitarianism says goodness is whatever boosts aggregate happiness. So to a utilitarian, “boosting aggregate happiness” = “good”. Your challenge of “show me a policy that would boost aggregate happiness and not be good” runs into a problem. The only way for this to even be a coherent question for you to ask is if “good” does not mean the same thing as “boosting aggregate happiness”. If you’re just defining “good” to mean “boosts aggregate happiness” then your challenge amounts to saying nothing more than you saying “Show me a policy that boosts aggregate happiness that does not boost aggregate happiness.” And the statement “I’m a utilitarian because I think it’s good to maximize aggregate happiness” is equal to saying “I’m a utilitarian because I think it maximizes aggregate happiness to maximize aggregate happiness.” It’s just talking in circles. It’s certainly not opening the door to a real discussion. How can you expect someone to show you a possible policy which boosts aggregate happiness, yet not be good, if you’re defining good policies to mean whatever policy boosts aggregate happiness? In order for your challenge to open the door to any possibility of discussion or debate, you need to be using a definition of “good” that means something other than “maximizes aggregate happiness.”
But, you’ve explicitly stated you would abandon utilitarianism if someone could show you an example of a policy that boosts aggregate happiness, but would still not be a good policy. In order for this statement of yours to cut any ice, it would have to mean you do believe that “good” has a definition different from “boosting aggregate happiness.” But if you believe “good” means something different from “boosts aggregate happiness,” then you aren’t a utilitarian. Or, as I also argued above, you’re using the word “utilitarian” to mean something very different from how it’s used by everyone else in philosophy, and your personal lexicon is just confusing things for everyone else.
I think it’s pretty clear that “good” and “maximizes happiness” don’t mean the same thing. If I ask a utilitarian (and I often do) “Why is it good to maximize happiness,” that’s clearly an open ended question to which a number of answers could be given. One possible answer is “I can’t see any other reasonable criterion.” I don’t find that a very compelling or interesting or persuasive answer, but nonetheless it’s an answer. But I can’t sensibly ask “Why does it maximize happiness to maximize happiness.” That’s not an open ended question, and there are no sensible answers one could give in response. If “good” meant the same thing as “maximizes happiness” then those two questions should be identical, and answers about one should apply to the other. But since they’re clearly different questions, and answers about one don’t apply to the other, then it certainly seems to me that “good” does not mean the same thing as “maximizes happiness.”
Scott Sumner
Apr 22 2019 at 2:19pm
Kevin, You said:
“It still seems like you’re conflating “true” and “useful.””
That’s correct, and I do so on purpose. Saying a philosophy or social science theory is true is no different from saying it’s useful. I do not believe in objective truth. If it’s not useful, then it’s not true.
You said:
“I think it’s pretty clear that “good” and “maximizes happiness” don’t mean the same thing.”
Fine, so convince me of that with examples. If someone tells me I should oppose kidney markets, despite the boost in happiness, then they should convince me of why I’m wrong. That’s how to move me away from utilitarianism. Convince me that I’m not paying enough attention to the problem of turning the human body into a commodity. Right now I don’t see why that’s a big problem, whether it’s selling hair to wigmakers or selling kidneys to hospitals.
You said:
“One possible answer is “I can’t see any other reasonable criterion.””
Yup, that’s exactly my view.
Dylan
Apr 22 2019 at 3:00pm
Scott,
I think this is where you get into trouble with (at least Western) philosophers. Pretty much the whole objective of philosophy is discerning what truth is, even when it may be 180 degrees away from useful. For a moral theory to be “true” it needs to be 100% true, in all possible hypothetical situations, if you can find an example where the theory doesn’t seem to be true, then it is either false, or they’re is some confounding factor that you’re not seeing. With utilitarianism, that is a retreat to “rules based” utilitarianism that says, we’re still maximizing happiness in the long run by doing such and such, even though it doesn’t seem to maximize happiness in the short run. This is fine in some cases, but there are a number of situations where this seems implausible, where the utilitarian either has to make a claim that goes against the moral intuition (yep doctors should kill their patients if they can get away with it, and if doing so saves more lives) or else they resort to bigger contortions to make the theory fit with their preexisting moral beliefs…which makes it seem like it are those underlying beliefs that are driving their moral system, and not utilitarianism.
Personally, from a pragmatic point of view, I think using utilitarian thought to guide public policy decisions is a perfectly fine framework most of the time. I want my politicians to be focused on trying to maximize happiness (for humans worldwide, not just in the U.S.). But there are certainly cases that make me doubt. Let’s take the torture case you mention, same ticking nuclear bomb, except our best bet is not to torture the suspect, but instead the suspects children. We’re not sure of course that this will work, but we give it a 60% chance that the suspect will eventually give up the info if we torture their children long enough. Otherwise a million people might die.I think utilitarianism says, under these very unique circumstances, you should probably torture the children. Me, I’m not so sure.
Incidentally, I think your useful=truth perspective is also on display with the EMH. From reading your posts on this, I think it is clear that even you don’t believe that the EMH is true (in the way that most people use the word). Given the world as it exists today, it might be useful to behave as if the EMH is true, because we can’t reliably profit from the non-efficient aspects of the market…but that is a long ways away from saying that the EMH is actually true.
KevinDC
Apr 22 2019 at 6:15pm
Dylan,
I’ve noticed the same thing about Scott’s unusual terminology as of late. Not only is he using the term “true” to mean something different from how pretty much everyone else defines it, he’s doing the same thing with the term “utilitarianism” itself! As I mentioned in a comment above, philosophers define utilitarianism as providing a criterion of right and wrong, not a method for making decisions (either at the individual or social policy level). But Scott has been insisting that utilitarianism just means “a criterion for public policy.” This is extremely weird, to say the least. I’m reminded of when Scott was expressing sympathy for Paul Krugman in dealing with the advocates of MMT. (In this blog post specifically https://www.econlib.org/more-mmt-follies-sympathy-for-krugman/) At one point, Scott says “The third response is a complete non sequitur. Krugman asks if expansionary fiscal policy reduces interest rates and she responds that expanding the money supply reduces interest rates. Huh?” If the person in question just said “well that’s just how I personally choose to define ‘fiscal policy'” Scott would have no patience for that (I assume). He’d believe, quite reasonably, that in a discussion about economics, with economists, you should use the term “fiscal policy” the way it’s normally defined by economists. But at the same time, in a philosophical discussion, he repeatedly fails uses the term “utilitarianism” in a way that bears any resemblance to the way it’s actually used by philosophers, and he keeps insisting the discussion should be reframed around his personal definition. The point of view he’s describing could reasonably be called political pragmatism, maybe, but certainly not utilitarianism. But for him to act like he’s giving a philosophical defense of utilitarianism while using it in a way no philosopher would recognize is, well…really weird.
Scott Sumner
Apr 23 2019 at 12:32pm
Kevin, You said:
“As I mentioned in a comment above, philosophers define utilitarianism as providing a criterion of right and wrong, not a method for making decisions (either at the individual or social policy level). But Scott has been insisting that utilitarianism just means “a criterion for public policy.”
Not so, I concede that the moral theory can be applied to personal life as well. I just don’t happen to think it’s useful in that domain. I find it useful for public policy purposes. But I do accept the standard definition of utilitarianism. As an analogy, I agree that you can eat a salad with a fork, but I find it easier to eat salad with chopsticks. If Peter Singer wants to evaluate every single personal decision using utilitarian criterion, more power to him. I don’t. To each their own.
You said:
When I said “I think it’s pretty clear that ‘good’ and ‘maximizes happiness’ don’t mean the same thing,” you said “Fine, so convince me of that with examples.” But…I said that after giving a very specific and drawn out explanation for why I thought they didn’t mean the same thing. Maybe you found my explanation flawed or you think I committed some logical fallacy. If that’s the case, I’d be interested to hear it. But for you to just say that, while completely failing to even acknowledge everything I said leading up to that conclusion (let along attempt to engage it), makes me wonder if you’re even trying to be serious.”
People often seem foolish in philosophical debates, but I’m being serious. There are two senses that I could imagine a difference between “good” and “maximizes utility”. One sense is logical; these are two different words and hence I would say “yes, they might have different meanings.” The other sense is, “can I currently imagine a specific real world situation where the good differs from maximizing utility.” And the answer is no, at least so far. So I want critics of utilitarianism to show me a specific situation where it’s pretty clear that something is not good, despite maximizing utility. I want them to enlighten me with a wonderful example. In philosophy, I have trouble thinking of abstractions, and prefer to consider concrete examples. As of this moment, my mind cannot conceive of an actual bad policy that maximizes utility. But I keep an open mind, and perhaps someone will convince me with a good example. Something where I go “Yes, that clearly maximizes utility, but my gut tells me it’s nonetheless bad.”
I don’t follow your last big paragraph. If I believe a moral theory because it seems to be the best moral theory, why is that a “parody”?
Suppose a Democrat told you “I plan to vote for Beto because I don’t see a better primary candidate”. Does that insult your intelligence?
Scott Sumner
Apr 23 2019 at 12:13pm
Dylan, As I’m sure you know, the philosophical discipline of epistemology is a complete mess, and after 2500 years there is still no agreed upon criterion for “truth.” Not even close. I find Richard Rorty’s approach to be the most sensible, and he looks at truth from the perspective of philosophical pragmatism.
Dylan said:
“For a moral theory to be “true” it needs to be 100% true, in all possible hypothetical situations”
I disagree. If a theory is true in 100% in all zintillion actual situation, in all 100 billion galaxies in the universe, then the theory is true in any meaningful sense of the term. That’s good enough.
The EMH has weaknesses, but is true in the sense that any other social science theory is true. Obviously no social science theory describes reality with 100% precision. The term ‘true” is a human construct, and humans use this language in a flexible, pragmatic manner. When people say “true” they don’t mean what you suggest they mean. There is often uncertainty associated with the claim. For instance, if someone says that a claim made by Trump or Sanders “is not true” the listener understands that the speaker means “not true in the speaker’s opinion”.
KevinDC
Apr 22 2019 at 4:34pm
Hello again Scott –
This will probably be my last response, because I feel like the conversation is going past the point of being pointful, but a few concluding thoughts on my part.
You said “Saying a philosophy or social science theory is true is no different from saying it’s useful. I do not believe in objective truth. If it’s not useful, then it’s not true.” There isn’t much I can say in response to that. Once someone says they don’t believe there is an objective truth that we both can share and try to converge on, conversation becomes pretty much pointless.
When I said “I think it’s pretty clear that ‘good’ and ‘maximizes happiness’ don’t mean the same thing,” you said “Fine, so convince me of that with examples.” But…I said that after giving a very specific and drawn out explanation for why I thought they didn’t mean the same thing. Maybe you found my explanation flawed or you think I committed some logical fallacy. If that’s the case, I’d be interested to hear it. But for you to just say that, while completely failing to even acknowledge everything I said leading up to that conclusion (let along attempt to engage it), makes me wonder if you’re even trying to be serious.
You also said your view is based on the idea of “I can’t see any other reasonable criteria.” To me, this is almost a parody. When you’re dealing with the people around you, and they tell you something, and you want to know why they think that, do you accept “‘I can’t think of anything else” to be an acceptable reason for those beliefs? “I wonder why X is happening?” “I think it’s because of Y.” “What reason do you have to think it’s Y?” “Because I can’t think of anything else.” “Yeah, that seems legit.” Really??? Is that how you actually operate???????????? If we as a species have made any progress in rationality at all, it was suppose to be in understanding the difference between “X is all I can think of” and “I have good reason to think X.” The fact that you seem to think these mean the same thing is seriously making me question how much I trust your writings on other topics.
Last question – do you think it’s objectively true that there is no objective truth? 😀
Scott Sumner
Apr 23 2019 at 12:34pm
Somehow my reply to this got placed above your comment.
KevinDC
Apr 22 2019 at 7:10pm
Okay, I have to ask one more question, because now I’m really confused. You asked me to convince you that “good” doesn’t mean the same thing as “boosts happiness.” I groused at you at first because when you said that, I also provided an argument for why I said I think they don’t mean the same thing, and you never responded to or even acknowledged the explanation I gave. But leave that aside for now – or at least for this comment 😛
It seems like you’re saying you do believe that “good” means the same thing as “boosts happiness.” So then…when you said “Show me an example of a policy that would boost happiness but not be good”…what on earth do you even think you’re saying? By your own declaration, this means you’re just saying “Show me a policy that would be good but not be good” or “Show me a policy that would boost happiness but not boost happiness.” What???? If you’re saying the only way anyone can convince you of something different from what you already think is by giving you an example of something that you’ve defined in a logically contradictory way, what’s the point of even inviting the discussion?
Scott Sumner
Apr 23 2019 at 12:38pm
If I said “It seems to me that ice cream always tastes yummy”, does that mean that I’m not willing to consider the possibility that there might be some bad tasting ice cream out there? Perhaps brussels sprouts flavored? Personally, I’ve never had ice cream that tastes bad, but I can imagine that it might exist, and that someone might eventually show me an example.
KevinDC
Apr 23 2019 at 2:07pm
Hello again Scott –
There’s too many replies to too many comments, so I’ll just put this here as a “catch all” type of response.
You said “I do accept the standard definition of utilitarianism” but you also said that you accept that “good” and “boosts happiness” are “two different words and hence I would say ‘yes, they might have different meanings.'” These are incompatible. If you accept the standard definition of utilitarianism, then you believe that “good” and “boosts happiness” are identical by definition. If you don’t think they are by definition identical, then you don’t accept the standard definition of utilitarianism. That’s just what utilitarianism means. If you mean something different than that when you talk about utilitarianism, then you aren’t talking about the standard definition of utilitarianism. There’s just no way around this. I know you’re not a philosopher and I understand that you probably haven’t invested much time in studying philosophy and how philosophers define their terms. And that’s fine. But when you say things like this, it sounds the same as someone saying “I accept the standard definition of fiscal policy, and I think the central bank expanding the money supply is an example of fiscal policy.” A statement like that might sound plausible to a random person on the street who hasn’t spent any time studying economics. But to an economist, it sounds incoherent and confused at best. I can’t stop you from continuing to talk this way and say that it has anything whatsoever to do with “utilitarianism,” all I can do is repeat my re-purposed quote from Scott Alexander:
You asked “Suppose a Democrat told you ‘I plan to vote for Beto because I don’t see a better primary candidate’. Does that insult your intelligence?”
I think this analogy is specious. As a voter, you have a limited number of pre-existing candidates you must choose from. One can say “While Beto isn’t very good, I still think Beto is the best candidate available,” and I could see how that’s a sensible statement, even if I disagree with their assessment of Beto. But…come on! That bears not even the tiniest resemblance to choosing to support a particular school of philosophical thought! The second case is much more like having a ballot where you aren’t limited to existing candidates, or even to candidates who have already merely been proposed, but instead you have a “write in” option where you can simply create any candidate you want, with any characteristics you want. Sadly, we can’t act that way as voters, but you have every opportunity to act that way in philosophy.
But still, let me take another crack at explaining why I found “I can’t think of anything else” as being almost a parody. When a person wants to assert a positive statement like “I believe X,” there’s a reasonable expectation that they can give positive reasons for why the believe X is true. If someone says “I believe autism is caused by vaccines,” if they want their claim to be taken seriously, they need to be able to supply positive reasons why they hold that claim. And if they say “I believe it because X, Y, and Z,” then I can examine those statements and see if they hold water, or if they collapse under scrutiny. But if someone said “I think autism is caused by vaccines” and when asked why they simply said “Because I can’t think of anything else,” well…I have no reason whatsoever to take them seriously. And I don’t. This is true even though I personally don’t have any alternate explanation for the causes of autism – which I don’t. Utilitarians advocate for the Principle of Utility. (At least, utilitarians who operate by the standard definition of utilitarianism do. At this point, I genuinely have no idea whether Sumner-tarianism advocates the Principle of Utility or not. Do you?) So naturally, I’m inclined to ask “You believe in the Principle of Utility. Why do you believe that, and why should I?” If the only response they have is “Because I can’t think of anything else” then I also don’t take them seriously, and nobody else should either.
Scott Sumner
Apr 24 2019 at 1:42pm
Kevin, I am afraid you are wrong about utilitarianism. You seem to suggest that utilitarians believe their theory is true by definition, that good and maximizes happiness have identical meanings. No good philosopher ever believes their theory is true by definition. So that’s flat out wrong. I believe maximizing happiness happens to be good, but I’m willing to entertain alternative theories.
And you wrongly implied that I did not consider alternative theories when choosing utilitarianism. Not true, I looked at alternative theories like natural rights, Christianity, etc. I like utilitarianism best. That’s what I meant when I said I can’t think of anything better, not that I hadn’t considered anything else
A famous philosopher once said something like “liberals are people who believe cruelty is the worst thing we do”. You don’t come to that belief through some sort of mathematical proof, which can be written down on paper. For me it’s introspection, it just seems like happiness is the appropriate goal. I see no alternative goals that seem better. But it’s clearly based on intuition, or introspection, not rigorous scientific reasoning.
KevinDC
Apr 24 2019 at 4:03pm
Scott –
Perhaps I’m not explaining myself clearly – but you’ve again misunderstood almost everything I said – or at least what I was trying to say. Maybe something about the comment section of a blog makes me unusually incomprehensible – because this usually doesn’t happen 😛
For example, I did not remotely suggest utilitarians believe their philosophy is true by definition. What I actually said was “utilitarian philosophers advocate for the Principle of Utility” which says “good” and “boosts happiness” are by definition the same. Advocate for – not assume! So no, I did not suggest or imply that utilitarians “assume” the truth of their philosophy – I was explicitly and unambiguously saying the opposite! Utilitarian philosophers have over the years said “I believe the the principle of utility is true because [reasons X, Y, and Z]...” That is to say, utilitarian philosophers have traditionally provided actual arguments for why they think the principle of utility is true. While I haven’t found those arguments persuasive, I at least take them seriously and I respect them. But if the only thing a utilitarian had to offer for why I should accept the principle of utility is “Because I can’t think of anything else” then I don’t take them seriously. Why should I?
So the fact remains – utilitarians are defined as a school of thought that argues for (not assumes) the principle of utility, and the principle of utility says that “good” by definition means the same as “increases happiness.” If you don’t think those two things are by definition the same, then you aren’t a utilitarian. If you do think they are by definition the same thing, I’m open to be convinced – but since you’re making the claim, you’ll have to provide positive arguments for why that would be the case. If you have no arguments to give, then you have no cause for complaint if your advocacy of utilitarianism gets a poor reception.
And I didn’t say, or imply, that you never considered alternate philosophical thoughts. I said that your analogy to choosing a political candidate is flawed, because a voter must select from a limited pool of preexisting candidates, but no such restriction exists on supporting ideas, therefore “I can’t think of anything else” as a reason for advocating an idea is not comparable to “Beto is the best available candidate on the ticket” for casting a vote.
Henri Hein
Apr 21 2019 at 6:34pm
I want to bypass the semantics a bit and point out a policy that tends to separate the utilitarians from the deontologists: waterboarding. Of course, one can criticize waterboarding on utilitarian grounds, but let us stipulate that it works the way its defenders claim. If it waterboarding 20 prisoners generally prevents an attack that kills 100 people, the math is clearly in favor of allowing the policy. I would still be against it.
The utilitarian could then ask me probing questions to reveal that I am uncomfortable with torturing the innocent and the ramifications of routine, state-sanctioned violence that sounds closer to utilitarian concerns. Which makes me wonder if the utilitarian and deontologist positions are as far apart as they first appear.
KevinDC
Apr 21 2019 at 8:17pm
Hey Henri –
Interesting points. I think the simplest way to resolve that tension is to admit the obvious – that framing the discussion as one of consequentialism vs deontology is a bad framing, for two reasons. One, these are not the only two possibilities to consider, and two, consequentialism and deontology are both obviously false.
This is not to say that there’s something amiss about worrying over “the ramifications of routine, state-sanctioned violence,” but I wouldn’t say this necessarily means these are intrinsically “utilitarian concerns.” Consequentialism isn’t just the belief that “consequences matter.” You can believe consequences matter, without being a consequentialist. Consequentialism is the belief that only consequences matter, and that right and wrong, good and bad, are defined solely in terms of consequences. (Utilitarianism is just a subgroup of consequentialism that says “Only consequences matter, and specifically, the consequence of increasing happiness. Nothing else has any moral value, and can only be instrumentally valuable to the degree it increases utility.”)
You can think rights and obligations are important, without being a deontologist and considering them all-important. And you can think results are important without being a consequentialist and thinking consequences are all-important. The sooner people shake off this false dichotomy, the better.
Scott Sumner
Apr 22 2019 at 2:24pm
Henri, Here’s how I’d handle torture. I’d make torture illegal, for utilitarian reasons. It generally has more negative than positive effects. But if I were a government official I might use torture in rare cases, say someone knows where a ticking atomic bomb in hidden. If that official really believes the suspect has this information, they should be willing to break the law and pay the price, just as someone rushing an injured loved one to the hospital might be willing to break (valid) laws against speeding.
Timothy O.
Apr 22 2019 at 5:37pm
The issue that seems to be recurring is the conflict between Betham’s moral calculus and Mill’s rule utilitarianism. Inasmauch as both are not completely compatible with the other (i.e. in deciding between two actions, an action justified under rule utilitarianism would not necessarily be the action justified under Bentham’s Utilitarianism), the entire premise for this conversation would seem to rely on a somewhat shaky and conflating foundation (it’s almost as if KevinDC made this point at Apr 20 2019 at 5:21pm).
Secondly, how does one determine if an action boosts aggregate happiness? The only way I can think of (for lack of imagination) is to measure brain patterns of everyone in response to a public policy. Now that we have census level data on everyone for exactly how much one action affects everyone’s happiness, we can make some public policy because we now have a direct and objective measure of aggregate happiness from that action.
Under rule utilitarianism, the attempt is to remove the rather cumbersome measuring process. However, it makes the rather arrogant assumption that the only happiness that matters is the happiness that whoever makes the rules about measuring happiness thinks matters.
Hence, under rule utilitarianism, torture (and the common parade of horribles) should be made illegal. However, under a precisely measured and objective aggregate happiness, we may find that the profound joy of the torturer tilts the scale towards making torture mandatory. Aggregate happiness does not discriminate where the happiness comes from whereas rule utilitarianism does discriminate by what it does and does not measure.
Hence, rule utilitarianism is just as useful as any other method for selecting public policy where information isn’t perfect and one would like to be able to choose the assumptions for decision-making based on the desired results.
As to the objection of Professor Caplan based on hypocrisy or conscience, it is precisely this individual decision that renders utilitarianism untenable for public policy prescriptions. The only people who would be able to operate in the spheres of public policy would be the people who would enjoy snuffing out Grandma for the greater good and no one would be willing to let them precisely because they are the people who would enjoy snuffing out Grandma for the greater good. The other option would be a socially distant set of decision-makers and decision-enforcers that are completely unaware of the consequences. Hence, we may point to the US government as a case of a functioning (and hence, useful and true) utilitarian decision-making and enforcing body.
Scott Sumner
Apr 23 2019 at 12:42pm
Timothy, I agree that pure utilitarians have a hard time getting elected. But there are degrees of utilitarianism. Public policy (and politicians) in Denmark are vastly more utilitarian than in Afghanistan.
Timothy O.
Apr 23 2019 at 2:22pm
In what way is there degrees of utilitarianism?<br>
Specifically regarding rule utilitarianism, I would argue that the degrees of utilitarianism would derive not from utilitarianism itself, but from the degree of happiness ignored as the result of intentional or incidental imperfections in the measuring process. The issue with public policy would be to determine the optimal happiness ignored in the decision of measurement.<br><br>
With regard towards utilitarianism of any form I would argue that degrees of utilitarianism stem from the degree of adherence rather than with utilitarianism itself, similar to religiosity. A person may be a “fervent” utilitarian or a “casual” utilitarian depending on the influence that person assigns utilitarianism to their moral guidance. Extending this to a public policy perspective, is aggregate happiness maximized when aggregate happiness maximization is the sole social goal? (If that sounds like a tautology, then you are not reading it precisely.) The American population (much less the world) has diverse and often contradictory social goals. How does one distinguish much less choose from these contradictory public policy prescriptions under sole happiness maximization without objectively measuring happiness? <br><br>Perhaps, both Afghanistan and Denmark have chosen the happiness maximizing degree of adherence to utilitarianism for their respective countries and thus are aggregate happiness maximizing.<br><br>
Scott Sumner
Apr 24 2019 at 1:45pm
Timothy. I agree that attempting to maximize happiness does not always lead to actual happiness maximization. This an ideology of laissez faire may lead to more happiness than a utilitarian ideology, due to cognitive biases among policymakers.
robc
Apr 23 2019 at 10:46am
How does schadenfreude fit into utilitarianism?
If I derive enough happiness from the misery of others does that make it positive aggregate happiness?
Scott Sumner
Apr 23 2019 at 12:44pm
robc, Fortunately, schadenfreude is a minor emotion, virtually always much weaker than the suffering endured by the victim.
KevinDC
Apr 24 2019 at 5:09pm
Hello again Scott!
(Apparently I can’t leave this comment in the thread where it was meant to go – there’s probably some limit on how far a thread can continue. But I just had to toss on one more comment in rebuttal to your claim that I said utilitarians were just assuming the truth of their philosophy.)
I mean c’mon, Scott. If I said “The Money Illusion is a blog where Scott Sumner advocates for the theory known as market monetarism,” would anyone take that to mean I’m saying your blog just assumes the truth of market monetarism? Of course not! 😛 They would take it to mean something more like “The Money Illusion is a blog where Scott Sumner argues in favor of market monetarism by giving various arguments and reasons and citing data and graphs and such.” Or that’s the only sensible way I can see of reading that statement. Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I can’t see how someone would claim the former interpretation is a fair or honest reading of what I said.
Scott Sumner
Apr 26 2019 at 5:02pm
Kevin, You said:
“For example, I did not remotely suggest utilitarians believe their philosophy is true by definition. What I actually said was “utilitarian philosophers advocate for the Principle of Utility” which says “good” and “boosts happiness” are by definition the same.”
That’s just wrong. Christians don’t equate good with “boosts happiness”. I think happiness happens to be good, but I don’t think Christians lack an understanding of “definitions”. I can imagine a world where the good is not equivalent to boosting happiness, at least as a logical proposition. And even if some utilitarians do define it that way, they can certainly envision other conceivable definitions.
Utilitarianism is the claim that what boosts happiness is good. If it were true that “good” and “boosts happiness” are exactly the same, by definition, then that would imply (to me) that utilitarianism is true by definition.
You said:
“And I didn’t say, or imply, that you never considered alternate philosophical thoughts. I said that your analogy to choosing a political candidate is flawed, because a voter must select from a limited pool of preexisting candidates, but no such restriction exists on supporting ideas, therefore “I can’t think of anything else” as a reason for advocating an idea is not comparable to “Beto is the best available candidate on the ticket” for casting a vote.”
OK, I’ve looked at all of the alternative moral theories that I am aware of, and find them all to be inferior to utilitarianism. Happiness seems the best goal because it’s what I prefer in my own life, and other people seem to have a similar goal. So based on introspection and casual observation of others, I believe it’s best.
Comments are closed.