What is utilitarianism?

Justin and I were discussing the concept of utilitarianism, when the question was raised: what exactly is a utilitarian? Some people would call utilitarianism a belief that "the ends justify the means". But when it comes down to it, isn't utilitarianism really just some set of values, and a belief in doing what is necessary in order to maximize the realization of those values? After all, both "ends" and "means" are in some sense an "event", and you could say that a utilitarian is simply someone who has a theory as to what kinds of events are good, and what kinds of events are bad, and tries to cause good events to happen and bad events not to happen.

The problem with this definition of a utilitarian is that it would be impossible to come up with a set of moral values which are not classified as utilitarian, since all moral theories are just a set of values — things one considers good and bad, and actions one considers right and wrong. So the word becomes meaningless.

Yet, "utilitarianism" means something, and it means something important. We shouldn't just discard the word. There are in fact people who seem to be so "utilitarian" (whatever that means) that they effectively throw out morality.

Our realization was that a utilitarian is someone who has a set of moral ideas which he doesn't believe apply in some circumstances. Of course, this definition, taken literally, is itself relatively meaningless, because you could easily just say that the person in question has a larger moral framework which states that certain ideas apply some of the time, and others apply during other times. In that sense, there is no logical inconsistency, and he is in fact applying his "moral framework" in all circumstances.

But this lack of unification is a very unnatural disconnect, and suggests that the person, rather than having one underlying unified theory of morality, has some sort of ideal of how things should be, and has a totally different set of values which he feels are justified in achieving that ideal. Certain types of theories, such as communism, pacifism, and isolationism, are irreconciliable with reality. If attempted to put into practice in the real world, the result is catastrophe. These theories are thus "utopian". Some utopians genuinely try to live their lives according to their beliefs, but others reconcile their theories with reality, not by changing their theories, but rather by ignoring their theories when they don't fit. Examples are "pacifists" who make exceptions when they are themselves physically attacked, or communists who realize that the only way to achieve their goals is through totalitarian control. They are "pragmatic" enough that they will use other measures entirely to reach their ideal. In other words: the luxury of utopianism is provided by being a utilitarian. These seemingly opposite concepts, utopianism and utilitarianism, share a deep connection.

The only honest way around this is to recognize that no theory can be moral if it is not practicable in reality.

This is related to libertarianism in an interesting way. Libertarianism as a political philosophy is very deep, and is built on a complicated structure of ideas and values. Some have attempted to summarize libertarianism with the "non-aggression principle", the statement that "no one shall initiate the use of force or the threat of force." When I first discovered this summary, I thought it was brilliant, since in my mind, it is a very succinct way of putting forth the basic libertarian concept of personal sovereignty. And it is brilliant, but it poses a problem: many so-called libertarians learn this as the defining concept of libertarianism, and adopt the principle without the deep moral foundation underneath it. Thus, they attempt to apply this rule dogmatically without any understanding, leading to ridiculous misconceptions such as thinking that the U.S. invasion of Iraq constituted a violation of that principle. Furthermore, many who are exposed to libertarian ideology believe that this principle is the only thing libertarians care about, and are unable to appreciate the deeper moral knowledge contained in the philosophy. Unfortunately, this perception is not without basis, because in fact the majority of so-called libertarians today have taken on just such a dogmatic, utopian ideology.

There is a good Go analogy here. Here are the rules of Go:

1. Two players take turns placing black and white stones, alternating, on the empty intersections of the board. The players may pass if they wish.
2. Stones of the same color which are connected through the lines form a "group".
3. If any group has no liberties (adjacent empty intersections), it is captured (removed from the board). Remove groups of the color just played only if they still have no liberties after having removed groups of the opposing color.
4. A move which repeats an earlier board position is illegal.
5. The game ends when both players pass in a row. The winner is the player with the most stones left on the board.

The fact that "Certain types of theories, such as communism, pacifism, and isolationism, are irreconciliable with reality" has little to do with utilitarianism, which is "the greatest good for the greatest number" -- unless, of course, those with ideas you view as impracticle are advocating their ideas as utilitarian ideas. I see no evidence presented by you that they are offering the such.

You go on to say, "The only honest way around this is to recognize that no theory can be moral if it is not practicable in reality." I agree, because reality is existence -- and existence is identity and the rule of all knowledge. A is A.

You continue: "Some have attempted to summarize libertarianism with the "non-aggression principle." Some have, such as L. Neil Smith: "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." Others have not, mostly recently Susan Lee: "Libertarians admit to one moral principle from which all preferences follow; that principle is self-ownership -- individuals have the right to control their own bodies, in action and speech, as long as they do not infringe on the same rights for others."

Your post references LP.org as dogmatic libertarians who have "ridiculous misconceptions such as thinking that the U.S. invasion of Iraq constituted a violation of that principle." You fail, however, to prove your contention that a War on Iraq is justifiable via your conception of libertarian principle. You then insult an entire group of people, collective thinking -- wonderful for someone bashing libertarian ideas -- without providing direct evidence of your claim. Sound reasoning? Rand would be ashamed. You fail to reference the fact that a variety of views on the War in Iraq have been published at the site you reference, LP.org. For instance: "A dozen different libertarian viewpoints on the war in Iraq," http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0305/views_iraqwar.html "LP News" - official publication of LP.org.

Cheers to Liberty (one day soon, but not if libertarians are coerced into accepting your interventionist, anti-liberty foreign policy),

Aaron
"War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne

Aaron,

Thanks for your comment. You start by saying that communism, pacifism, and isolationism have little to do with utilitarianism. I agree. I was explicitly using them as examples of utopianism, not utilitarianism. My point, however, is that those who try to implement utopian ideologies which don't reconcile themselves with reality ultimately end up employing what I call "utilitarian" methods. In other words, they ignore their very morals in order to implement them. It's true that one can define "utilitarianism" as "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". I started out my post by talking about such a definition. The problem is that it begs the question of just what is good to begin with, so it ends up becoming meaningless.

As far as Susan Lee is concerned, I said myself in my post that I consider the non-aggression principle to be a good way of summarizing the concept of "personal sovereignty", or, as Susan puts it, "self-ownership". I don't have a problem with this summary; as I said, I think it is a very good one. The problem, first of all, is that libertarians increasingly refuse to try to understand the deep justifications for this principle, and believe that the principle stands on its own as self-evident. The problem is further aggravated when libertarians like Susan say things like "Libertarians admit to one moral principle from which all preferences follow". This is the gripe I was voicing with many libertarians. To me, the non-aggression principle (or, if you like, the principle of self-ownership), is what defines libertarianism, but I consider libertarianism to be just one element of morality, not the only element, as Susan suggests it is.

You're right that in this post I did not justify my contention that the invasion of Iraq is not a violation of the non-aggression principle. It seemed like a relatively tangential point to a complicated post, and I thought it would distract from some of the more important points to delve into that. However, since you ask, my answer is that libertarians never question the morality of a police officer arresting a murderer, even though the police officer himself is not that murderer's victim. I see the former regime of Saddam Hussein as a mass-murdering criminal, and the U.S. effectively in the role of police officer, protecting itself, the Iraqi people, and the world from the danger that regime posed.

By the way, I did not mean to insult an entire group of people. I consider myself a libertarian, so it would be inconsistent for me say that all libertarians are anti-war. I said "the majority". That's not collective thinking. That's just a fact. I wasn't aware of the page you linked to. Thanks, it was interesting. I was pleased that three of the twelve libertarians were pro-war. If one were running for President, I might vote for him. However, three out of twelve is a minority, and the Libertarian Party has taken an official position against the Iraq War. So I do not believe it was unreasonable of me to offer the Libertarian Party as an example of a group of anti-war libertarians.

Hello! Can anybody help me with Utilitarianism? I have this dilemma. My family and I are thinking on putting my grandmother in a nursing home, but would it be fair to her to the family. This is a really hard decision based on the moral rule that we have obligation to our families. How can I justify it using utilitarianism? After thinking and evaluating all the pros and cons, I've come to the conclusion that the best thing for everybody would be to put her in a nursing home. Help I really am confused as to how to approach my dilemma under utilitarianism.

Thanks