Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Political Philosophy on Utilitarianism - Dictionary of Arguments
Gaus I 414 Utilitarianism/Political Philosophy/Weinstein: Contemporary English utilitarians have championed liberal utilitarianism with increasing subtlety and sophistication. Rule utilitarianism: Rule utilitarians stress utilitarianism's compatibility with accepted moral rules and intuitions (Hare, 1981(1); Harsanyi, 1985(2); Hooker, 2000(3)), whereas ... Liberal utilitarianism: ... liberal utilitarians marry utilitarianism with strong liberal rights (Gray, 1983(4); Riley, 1988(5)). All such accounts nevertheless constitute different versions of what is now commonly known as indirect utilitarianism. Indirect utilitarianism: For indirect utilitarians, according to James Griffin, the principle of utility serves as a 'criterion' for assessing classes of actions. By contrast, established moral rules and/or basic liberal rights function as sources of direct obligation (or 'decision procedures') for guiding individual actions (Griffin, 1994(6): 179). Actions are morally wrong if they violate these decision procedures. Indirect utilitarians hold that respecting such decision procedures will best maximize general utility overall, though not necessarily in short-term individual cases. In other words, sometimes acting rightly is doing wrong. But why should I act rightly if acting rightly happens not to be for the utilitarian best in a given situation? Why should I be a mindless, rule-worshipping sucker?* Fundamental rights/equal rights/Liberal utilitarianism: (...) for liberal utilitarianism, fundamental rights function as critical decision procedures, making it more juridical than rule utilitarianism. Rights indirectly steer our actions along inviolable channels of acceptable behaviour that purportedly generate overall general utility. But liberal utilitarianism is not simply a more juridical version of indirect utilitarianism. VsLiberal unitiltarianism: Contemporary liberal utilitarianism is often criticized in the same way as Mill's contemporary opponents assailed him for trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. For instance, John Gray (1989(7): 218—24) has recanted his earlier enthusiasm for liberal utilitarianism, agreeing with liberal utilitarianism's critics that it futilely seeks to join multiple ultimate normative criteria, namely utility and indefeasible moral rights. Gray: For Gray, either maximizing utility logically trumps rights, or rights (in so far as they possess authentic moral weight) trump maximizing utility. Liberal utilitarianism fails logically because it pulls in opposite normative directions, instructing us to maximize utility when doing so violates rights and to respect rights when doing so fails to maximize utility. We sometimes must choose between our liberalism and our utilitarianism. Egalitarian utilitarianism: Egalitarian liberals, in contrast to utilitarians, feature equality over utility as their overriding normative concern. Still, utilitarians are not indifferent to equality and distributive justice. As we have just seen, indirect utilitarians take these values seriously, though not so seriously that they trump maximizing utility as the ultimate normative standard. Utilitarians also prize equality in the sense that impartiality is constitutive of the principle of is counted for utility. Each person's 'happiness exactly as much as another's' (Mill, 1969(8): 257).** >J. St. Mill, >Egalitarianism. For egalitarian liberals, however, equality plays a more commanding role because many of them favour internalist arguments for equality.*** And because equality matters for them up front, they also tend to be more preoccupied with questions about equality of what rather than why. Cf. >Individuals/Bradley, >Liberty/Bosanquet, >Self-realization/Hobhouse. Gaus I 415 New Liberalism: (...) new liberals favoured a more robust threshold of equalizing opportunity rights. Although they concurred with >Bosanquet that possessing property was a potent means of 'self-utterance' and therefore crucial to successfully externalizing and realizing ourselves, they also stipulated that private property was legitimate only in so far as it did not Gaus I 416 subvert equal opportunity. >Equal opportunities. Hobson: In Hobson's words, 'A man is not really free for purposes of self-development who is not adequately provided' with equal and easy access to land, a home, capital and credit. Hobson concludes that although liberalism is not state socialism, it nevertheless implies considerably 'increased public ownership and control of industry' (1974(9): xii).ll New liberals, then, transformed English liberalism by making social welfare, and the state's role in promoting it, pivotal. They crafted welfare liberalism into a sophisticated theoretical alternative.**** >Liberalism, >Idealism. * For critics of contemporary indirect utilitarianism, rule-worshipping suckers are irrational because rule utilitarianism is not merely paradoxical, but illogical. Acting rightly can never sometimes entail doing wrong as if acting and doing mean different things. Rule utilitarians have responded by distinguishing between idealistic rule utilitarianism, actual state rule utilitarianism and conditional rule utilitarianism. Ideal rule utilitarianism holds that actions are right if they comport with rules whose general acceptance would promote utility. Actual state rule utilitariamsm adds the condition that these rules must, in fact, be generally accepted. Conditional rule utilitarianism is weaker still as it further stipulates that actions are right if they conform to rules that always maximize utility. ** Mill continues, 'The equal claim of everybody to happiness . involves an equal claim to all the means to happiness (1969(8): 257). In a revealing footnote about Spencer, Mill adds that 'perfect impartiality between persons' supposes that 'equal amounts of happmess are equally desirable, whether felt by the same or by different persons'. These egalitarian implications of impartiality are not identical and entail vastly different redistributive strategies. *** For Gerald Gaus (2000(10): 136-45), utilitarian arguments for equality are external because they endorse equal treatment for the sake of advancing some external value, namely happiness. Arguments from fundamental human equality justify equal treatment on the basis of some (internal) attribute according to which people are purportedly equal in fact. **** Idealists, like Jones and Collingwood, similarly favoured vigorously expanding equal opportunities through government. 1. Hare, R. M. (1981) Moral Thinking. Oxford: Oxford mversity Press. 2. Harsanyi, John (1985) 'Rule utilitarianism, equality and justice'. Social Philosophy and Policy, 2: 115-27. 3. Hooker, Brad (2000) Ideal code, Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4. Gray, John (1983) Mill on Liberty: A Defence. London: Routledge. 5. Riley, Jonathan (1988) Liberal Utilitarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6. Griffin, James (1994) 'The distinction between a criterion and a decision procedure', Utilitas, 6: 177-82. 7. Gray, John (1983) Mill on Liberty: A Defence. London: Routledge. 8. Mill, J. S. (1969) Utilitarianism. In J. M. Robson, ed., The Collected Works of J. S. Mill, vol. 10. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 9. Hobson, J. A. (1974 119091) The Crisis of Liberalism. Brighton: Barnes and Noble. 10. Gaus, Gerald (2000) Political Concepts and Political Theories. Boulder, CO: Westview. Weinstein, David 2004. „English Political Theory in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Political Philosophy Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
||
> Counter arguments against Political Philosophy
> Counter arguments in relation to Utilitarianism
