Utility and Rights Based Morality

To Get Started:

To get started for nextweek, watch video clips of the
Brown family at http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/alaskan-bush-people..

Two Theories of Morality

1. Utilitarianism

Read Utilitarianism (from Encyclopedia Brittanica)
Read everything except the "Historical survey." When you get to that part, skip down to "Effects of Utilitarianism in other fields," and read on from there.

What are the basic concepts of utilitarianism?
Why is the promotion of happiness the test by which to judge all human conduct?
What are moral intuitions and why are they supposed to be a problem for utilitarianism?
What is the difference between "rule" and "act" utilitarianism?
What did G. E. Moore add to utilitarianism?
Why is utilitarianism opposed to the retributive theory of punishment?
How do utilitarians think about politics?
Why do utilitarians support democracy?
How is utilitarianism related to social reform?

Read U T I L I T A R I A N I S M - - - N O T E S

What is the greatest happiness principle?
What is the only thing with intrinsic value?
What social reforms were supported by utilitarians?
Why is utilitarianism a science of morality?
Why is utilitarianism a form of consequentialism?
What is the "hedonism" objection to utilitarianism?
What is the "too demanding" objection to utilitarianism?
What is the "not enough time" objection to utilitarianism?
What are "subordinate rules?"
When should we break a subordinate rule?
What is the "predicting the future" objection to utilitarianism?
What is the "individual rights" objection to utilitarianism?
Explain the "Jack" example in your own words.
What is the "bite the bullet" reply to the objections?
What is the The Doctrine of Negative Responsibility?
What is the Hostage Dilemma Thought Experiment?
How do you personally analyze the Hostage Dilemma Thought Experiment?

Liberty as Means to Utility (Political Libertarianism)

John Stuart Mill thought that the first step in maximizing welfare over the whole society was securing the maximal liberty of all citizens. He thought liberty was so important to utility that you couldn't fully discuss utility without also discussing liberty. However, it's important to remember that Mill only valued liberty because of it's relationship to utility. He did not think that mere liberty was valuable in itself. He thought that liberty was only valuable because having liberty tended to increase utility.

To Mill, liberty was important for two reasons:

1. People enjoy liberty. Humans tend to like to be free to control their own lives. Even if someone else actually was better equipped to make all our decisions, most of us want to make our decisions for ourselves, so free decisionmaking is actually a pleasure, and is thus one of the pleasures that utilitarianism is trying to promote. Notice, however, that for utilitarianism, liberty is just one of many possible pleasures, and probably a higher pleasure, but, as a pleasure, it's not more important than any other higher pleasure.

2. Liberty efficiently organizes social behavior for pleasure. If you want everyone to have the maximum pleasure in their lives, the most efficient way to obtain this state is to let everyone go out and choose their activities for themselves. If letting everyone choose doesn't produce maximum utility all by itself, Mill thinks that we can set up laws to reduce the bad effects of anarchy, and thus achieve a society that produces more overall utility than any other politically feasible society.

To understand the idea of liberty as means to utility, read the following four Wikipedia sections:

And answer the following questions in your notes:

What is the struggle between authority and liberty?
What should be controlled by what?
In Mill's view, why is tyranny of the majority worse than tyranny of government?
What tyranny is it much harder to be protected against?
Why can there be no safeguard in law against the tyranny of the majority?
What is the only justification for a person's preference for a particular moral belief?
On a particular issue, which side will prevail?
Is this side necessarily correct?
What is the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community?
Is his own good sufficient warrant for society to override his own will?
Over what is the individual sovereign?
What is this standard based on?
When may it be ignored?
Who are benefitted by limited freedom?
What are the three basic liberties?
What is the freedom of thought and emotion?
What is the freedom to pursue tastes?
How is this freedom restricted?
What is the freedom to unite?
In what two ways is this freedom restricted?
Does Mill think that these freedoms could never be pushed aside?
What does Mill think about these freedoms in contemporary and civilized societies?
Does Mill think opinions should ever be suppressed?
What is the first proble with compelling an opinion to silence?
What is the problem with denying the possible truth of a suppressed opinion.
What is the problem with silencing an opinion that is in error?
What is our only chance of supplying the remainder of the truth?
Even if the received opinion is in fact the whole truth, what problem still remains in suppressing the erroneous views?
What does Mill think about suppression of opinion based on belief in infallible doctrine?
What does Mill think about the objection that the truth will necessarily survive persecution?
What does Mill think about "individuality?"
Why does he think society should promote individuality?
What does Mill think about conformity?
Why does Mill think it would be a bad idea if all our work was done by robots, "automatons in human form?"
Why does Mill think human nature is like a tree?
According to Mill, when should a person be left as free to pursue his own interests?
When does society have jurisdiction over a person's conduct?
Why does Mill reject the idea that liberty is simply for the purpose of allowing selfish indifference?
How does Mill argue for this liberal system?
Does Mill think society should be allowed to harm a person who does harm to himself through vice?
What should governments should punish a person for?
What should governments not should punish a person for?
Does Mill think that he contradicts himself in granting societal interference with youth because they are irrational but denying societal interference with certain adults though they act irrationally?
How does he first respond to this criticism?
Does he think that the societal obligation is to ensure that each individual is moral throughout adulthood? What does he think?
Does he agree that there is justification for certain religious prohibitions in a society dominated by that religion?
What kind of rules does he think that members of the majority ought to make?
What does Mill think we should do with persons whose conduct we find depraved?

The important thing to remember about utilitarian liberty is that it grants the rights it grants because gioving those rights promotes utility. If giving you a particular right in a particular way didn't promote utility, utilitarianism would not support giving you that right, no matter how much you wanted it.

Natural Rights, Contract Rights, and Liberty as a Value in Itself

In contrast to Mill's utility-based conception of liberty as primarily an instrumental value, there is also the idea that liberty, in the form of rights, is the only real value. In this view, morality is just a matter of natural rights, and utility doesn't actually matter from a moral perspective. On this view, if we could only save an infinite number of innocent children from an infinitely painful death by forcing Bill Gates to give us one dollar, we would be morally wrong if we saved the children, because Bill Gates has an absolute right to keep absolutely all of his billions of legally-earned dollars, and the children have absolutely no right to demand that anybody help them, no matter how easy it would be.

One problem with discussions of Natural Rights is that very few people who talk about rights seem to understand the difference between rights as an instrumental value (rights are valuable because they get us something else) and rights as an intrinsic value (rights are valuable whether or not they get us something else.) Thus you sometimes see people arguing that rights theory is right and utilitarianism is wrong because insisting on rights and ignoring utility will actually make everyone better off. (Do you see the self-contradiction here?)

Another issue is that the idea of natural rights stands at the heart of something called "social contract theory." The idea is that the most moral system of government is the one people would agree to accept in order to make the kind of society they would like to live in. This hypothetical contract is supposed to provide a justification for that kind of government because it gives the people in the society what they are morally entitled to. Generally, the social contract is thought to be justified as a means of securing people's natural rights. We want to have free exercise of our natural rights, so the only legitimate form of government is one that respects and enforces our natural rights. If a government fails to secure our natural rights, social contract theory says that the citizens have a right, perhaps even a duty, to overthrow that government.

To get a handle on rights theory, read the following Wikipedia pages.

You can read more if you like, but these sections are all you need to read.

Think about the following questions:

What does it mean to say that a right is "inalienable."
What two rights are included in almost all lists of natural rights?
Why did H. L. A. Hart argue that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty?
Which third right did John Locke emphasize?
What did Stephen Kinzer say about the Zoroastrian religion?
How is the idea of natural rights related to the idea of natural human equality?
What is "liberty of conscience?"
What did George Mason say about equality, freedom and natural rights?
What are "freeborn rights?"
What is the difference between alienable and unalienable rights?
What is Hegel's argument that rights are inalienable?
How does social contract theory justify the existence of "inalienable rights?"
Can a person validly voluntarily give up an inalienable right?
According to rights theory, can a government, or any other body have a moral right to deprive any person of an inalienable right?
How did Locke neatly derive slavery from capture in war?
What does it mean to say that "self-determination is not a claim to ownership which might be both acquired and surrendered?"
What does it mean to say that "self-determination is an inextricable aspect of the activity of being human?"
Why did Bentham and Burke argue that rights are not inalienable?
What is the most widely recognized alternative to the idea of inalienable rights?
What is one criticism of natural rights theory?
What is John Finnis's argument for natural law and natural rights?
What might it mean to say that a principle is "self-evident?"
What did Thomas Hobbes think humans should do if they wish to live peacefully?
Did Hobbes think that rights derived from natural law or social contract?
According to Locke what are the three natural rights?
What is the social contract?
How do specific forms of government come into being?
Why is government is instituted?
What happens morally if a government does not properly protect these rights?
Why did Thomas Paine think that rights cannot be granted by any charter?
According to Paine, what is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise?
According to Paine, what is the only principle on which they have a right to exist?

See you in class.

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: