The Arbitrary Aspect of Utilitarianism

It seems to me that the Socialists, (and those on the Left in the US), make a mistake very similar to those who profess a belief in God. They both try to take an undefinable idea and interject it into their philosophical hierarchy. Years ago, I would have said that the primary problem with a belief in God is that there is a lack of evidence. However, I now realize that it's much more than that. God cannot be defined, and hence, cannot exist by definition. Concepts such as omnipotent, omnipresent, and infinite, aren't concepts that can be found in reality, as they do not allow themselves definition. To Be, is to be something Definite -- not Infinite. So those who believe in God are making a metaphysical error.

In the same fashion, those on the Left make an ethical error, when they assert altruism into their philosophical hierarchy. Altruism demands that the primary beneficiary of one's actions be other people -- anyone other than oneself. The Left adopt several variations of this theme, but the primary variation seems to be a belief in utilitarianism. Utilitarianism demands that the actions people take be directed to the greatest good, as decided by the greatest number of people. Aside from the problems of having to find a definition for "the greatest number", and "the greatest good", both of which are undefinable concepts, the whole idea is arbitrary, and a belief in it comes without evidence. There is no logical reason for one to believe in utilitarianism, as there is no logical reason to believe that the beneficiary of one's actions be 'the King', or the 'German Race', or some inanimate object like 'the Temple', or God.

The egoist, on the other hand, carries no such baggage. He doesn't have to concretize undefinable concepts; nor explain his arbitrary choices. The requirements for life demand that all living creatures take action in their own best interest, with themselves as the beneficiary of their actions, in order to stay alive. Everyone alive does this; even those who profess to believe that their actions should be directed towards other people, for other reasons. Failure to act on one’s own behalf results in death, and this is all the reason that one needs to believe in egoism.

So why don’t those on the left see this? Why is it that those who are intricately familiar with the scientific method, with minds capable of comprehending highly specific details and abstract concepts, are incapable of understanding that an arbitrary decision in ethics leads to illogical and incorrect results, in the same fashion that an arbitrary decision in science leads to illogical and incorrect results? One cannot contribute to one’s own life by working for the benefit of others, any more than one can build a highly detailed scientific device, by working on one’s car. Ethics is the science of discovering the values needed for life, and should be treated as such. Likewise, the Arbitrary has no place here.

Craig Haynie

Post 1

Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 7:01am

BTW, that was a very thoughtful, well-written post. Thank you.

I've heard people ask similar questions, and I've never heard a good answer. Sometimes people explain "why" in historical terms (by reference to traditions), but, of course, history is driven by ideas -- not the other way around.

Take an example....in my view, when a historian "explains" some event as irrational as the Inquisition by reference to Christian ideas, the historian has, in logic, "explained" nothing. True, Christian ideas underpinned the Inquisition, but the obvious quesiton is: why did people accept Christian ideas in the first place? The historian may try to elaborate and "explain" why people hold Christian ideas by pointing out the fact that Christianity has a long tradition. But, again, this, in logic, "explains" nothing. The fact that an idea has been around a long time doesn't force people to accept it. People have freewill. The question is: why do people blindly accept tradition? Why do people shut off their minds when it comes to certain things?

Here's my best response...Ultimately, the question seems to boil down to "why do people hold irrational ideas?" But, how would anyone go about answering such a question? The question demands a "rational" explanation, but if a "rational" explanation were truly available, then the idea wouldn't be "irrational" in the first place. My humble conclusion to your question is that there is no answer to the question why. There is no "rational" explanation for the "irrational," my good friend.

I feel your pain.

Post 2

Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 1:52pm

Hi snowdog.

I responded to this in someplacesomewhere.com. Don't know if it's worthwhile to repost it here.

Jordan

Post 3

Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 4:07pm

Jordan:

Post it here for the benefit of the SOLOists. I would like to read it. So please link it or post it.

Craig,

I think that there is an answer to your question but that answer would have a lot more to do with mass psychology and Individual motivations and character aspects of the person who is evading. I am not qualified in any of these fields but I will ramble below about my experiences.

Firstly as a former member of the extreme left I must say that my own evasions had much more to do with my ‘faith’ in the Rich evil / Poor good separation of society. I believed wholly in the Marxist idea of value and labor because I had no idea what the hell was really going on there. When people would try to explain to me the errors in my thinking I worked from the presumption that if they disagreed with me, they must be wrong then I went about finding evidence to support their wrongness. In other words, I justified the means with the ends. I was hell bent to prove them wrong because I ‘felt’ that I was correct! I mean I thought to myself many a time ‘how can so many people be so wrong?’ and then answered myself ‘they must not be, there are a lot of them.’ This is a huge logical fallacy of course.

Though I think that my motivations for believing in the illogical were very complicated and had a lot more to do with the ease it offered me in avoiding responsibility for my actions and it also provided me a means to be in ‘revolt’ against society and feel morally justified in doing so. (In my case I accepted socialist ideas out of a need to revolt rather than conform). At no time during any of this did the idea that I should think consistently or seek to understand the furthest extent of my ideas come into play. I simply continuously sought ‘evidence’ to support my illogical claims no matter how scarce that evidence may appear. SO in this sense my first error was epistemological.

My second error was a socially motivated one. It is easier to conform to the collectivist socialist revolt than it is to stand on your own and think. I think most people get in the habit of thinking in the manner that rivers flow, that is they think the course of least resistance. Right now the course of least resistance is to accept the illogical and conform to the ‘socialist revolt.’ I think that this would be about as true for accepting traditions?

Another motivation for accepting the illogical for me was an adolescent sexual motivation. The point here is that there are a lot more women involved in the left right now, some of which I was attracted to and the only way to reach them was to become like them. I have often joked that Marx designed the communist manifesto as a small pocket sized book to help the leftist men attract leftist women by mere possession of the book. ‘Hey babe, look here I got the communist manifest in my pocket. I’m a rebel!’ Of course most leftists haven’t read it but still own it none the same.

Note: The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith doesn’t fit in ones pocket. In fact it weighs about 5 pounds. Not a book one could use to easily attract women or appear as a youthful rebel.

So for my part it was a number of personal factors that lead me to believe as I did.

1.) I wanted to be different

2.) I wanted to get laid

3.) I didn’t have the epistemological strength perhaps due to education to pursue consistent thinking.

4.) I thought along the path of least resistance as I was trying to revolt.

Also Craig You said in another thread that it took you ten years to come to Objectivist thought. What was your transition like? What were your motivations? These might help you to better understand why others think as they do.

Regards,

Eric J. Tower

Post 4

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:41am

Also Craig You said in another thread that it took you ten years to come to Objectivist thought. What was your transition like? What were your motivations? These might help you to better understand why others think as they do.

With me, it took me a long time to understand Objectivist thought. I don't know why, but it's difficult for me to move from one idea to the next without coming to a thorough understanding of the first idea. Also, for me, it was impossible to be convinced without understanding the whole basic philosophy -- something which occupies a huge volume of text when recited straight through. Every argument is based upon a foundation which must be understood before the argument can be understood.

But I was never a utilitarian. I believe they accept the ideas they believe, because they see no rational basis to have any ethical system at all. Therefore they vote on it. To convince them, (and we must convince them if we want society to move forward), we have to show them that ethics is a science. It's not arbitrary. That values are determined by the valuer, and not all values are equal. That there are no intrinsic values, and that values are a necessary precondition for life.

It's a tough job, but we are presented with a clear, reasonable, path. They, on the other hand, are just making stuff up.

Craig

Post 5

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:34am

Here's the repost.

quote from Snowdog:

Aside from the problems of having to find a definition for "the greatest number", and "the greatest good", both of which are undefinable concepts, the whole idea is arbitrary, and a belief in it comes without evidence.

Some might argue that if we know what's good for the part, and if the whole is made up of that same sort of part, then we know what's good for the whole. This, I think, is how lots of folks jump from egoism to utilitarianism.

The problem isn't that the good of the whole is not defineable (because I think in this approach it is). The problem is in using agent-neutral valuations instead of agent-relative valuations. In my view, utilitarianism doesn't successfully explain why agent-neutral valuations are proper.

*

To the first point, I would now add: It's not difficult to arrive at the principle "more pleasure is better" and forget to explain "to whom." I think it's easy to see how tempting it is to commit this Utilitarian mistake.

Jordan

Post 6

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 8:40pm

Hi,

Your post provoked my curiosity because I only had a vague idea of what utilitarianism is. A quick google search revealed that there numerous variations on the utilitarian theme. Jeremy Bentham's version says that an action is only good if the consequence of the action leads to happiness, defined as pleasure and the absense of pain. This is also called consequentialism which also describes the other varieties. In other words, the ends justify the means (which is, of course, bogus).

If I understand correctly though, utilitarians would want public policy to be formulated based on surveys which ask, "How much would this public policy increase your pleasure?" or "How much would it increase your pain?" and people could vote on a scale (10 this policy will give me lots of pleasure, -10 this policy will give me lots of pain). Therefore, if the average vote of the people who voted "pain" is greater than the average vote of the people who voted "pleasure," the policy should be carried out.

From an Objectivist perspective, this could keep a reign on the government monolith by providing a way for the population to let the government know if they really don't want something to be done. But on the other hand, if the majority of people are irrational second-handers, they could easily vote for policies which screw over the producers. Oh crap, this already happens.

I guess its impossible to reform the system of voting if the fundamental structure of the government leads to increasing government control over individual's lives.

I like the idea proposed in a recent article where there could be no government, only a company that buys land and administers a system of protection of individual rights in order to maximize profit ("Cutting the Gordion Knot...") I'm not sure how to produce a link in here. http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Hibbert/Cutting_the_Gordian_Knot_-_A_Hypothetical_Press_Conference_with_Donald_Trump.shtml
There we go. Therefore perhaps other companies would do the same thing, thereby producing competition? I.e., if I don't like something about this Freeland I can move to this other Freeland that is competing with the first for the absolute best protection of individual rights. You could choose a place to live like you choose products! What an awesome idea.

So is representative democracy a type of utilitarianism that should be thrown out?

Meg Townsend

Post 7

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 10:27pm

All variations of utilitarianism that I've heard of, will sacrifice the rights of the few, for the good of the many. This is basically what happens when the 'end justifies the means'. In practice, almost all utilitarians are leftists which believe that the individual should sacrifice his life for the good of the many. As practiced in democracy, the majority has unlimited power to exercise its will at whatever expense the majority feels is justified.

Sincerely,

Craig

Post 8

Saturday, May 1, 2004 - 2:04pm

Snowdog,

Some Utiltiarians think that the best way to maximize happiness is to abide by a rights-based system. These Utilitarians wouldn't advocate sacrificing others to each other. Instead, they would allocate a rights-based system that would favor societal efficiency. This does not necessarily entail sacrifice because the system wouldn't need to take something away from someone, but rather, would simply fail to give that something.

Meg Townsend,

For similar reasons, some Utilitarians would reject the rule of majority vote. Incidentally, Utilitarianism is generally divided into two categoires: Rule Utilitarianism and Consequentialist Utilitarianism. The former emphasizes right actions; the latter, good ends.

As for the idea that a company that buys land and administers a system of protection of individual rights in order to maximize profit... This is a dangerous idea. In the early 1900s, lots of towns were owned by companies. Onesuch company restricted residency to white people. Black people were prevented from living there. The Supreme Court held the restriction unconstitutional. See Marsh v. Alabama. Is it just to have a world where someone cannot possibly obtain the option to live? What if all towns had this ordinance? Where is the check on the company's power? If there is a check, then is it effective?

Jordan

Post 9

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 10:04am

Some Utiltiarians think that the best way to maximize happiness is to abide by a rights-based system. These Utilitarians wouldn't advocate sacrificing others to each other. Instead, they would allocate a rights-based system that would favor societal efficiency. This does not necessarily entail sacrifice because the system wouldn't need to take something away from someone, but rather, would simply fail to give that something.

But the marjority still, arbitrarily, decides the 'rules' by which we all live. Because the 'rights' they allocate to people aren't derived from natural rights, but instead, are decided by majority vote, such a system isn't based on rights. The foundation is different and the 'rights' they come up with could be anything: the right to healthcare; the right to housing; the right to own slaves -- whatever.

Craig

Post 10

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 11:43am

Hi Snowdog,

Don't understimate our opponents. Utilitarians are rarely arbitrary. They have calculated standards by which to evaluate actions and outcomes. The standards are usually flawed, but not arbitrary.

Most Utilitarians that I know don't rely on a "natural rights" formation of rights, but they don't use majority vote either. They do try to make rights yield the most efficient outcome for the aggregate, as opposed to the individual. This can be problematic, but often it overlaps with the Egoist perspective. For instance: Both Egoists and Utilitarians think no one should have a right to murder, theft, rape, or fraud. The Egoist explains how those crimes do violence to the individual; the Utilitarian explains how those do violence to society.

But a rights-based Utilitarian would likely ask for your personal sacrifice. The catch is that this personal sacrifice would occur without violation of anyone's (including your own) rights. Instead, the sacrifice would be performed with all rights intact. This is a position worth attacking.

Jordan

Post 11

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 6:27pm

Jordan,

As for the idea that a company that buys land and administers a system of protection of individual rights in order to maximize profit... This is a dangerous idea. In the early 1900s, lots of towns were owned by companies. Onesuch company restricted residency to white people. Black people were prevented from living there.

And the danger is what? You do not believe the ownership of property includes deciding who may and who may not use your property?

Is it just to have a world where someone cannot possibly obtain the option to live?

Do you really believe companies buying land and deciding who can live on it could possibly make the whole world unavailable to some people? By the way, the current world is one in which many people, "cannot possibly obtain the option to live," and virtually all of them suffer that fate at the hand of governments, not companies.

What if all towns had this ordinance?

What if everyone was a dentist, who would pick up the garbage? I understand the motivation to use this fallacious argument. It is certainly tempting, but nothing is ever universal when it comes to human choice. Besides, the argument assumes you are better than all those who might make such ordinances for municipalities. If you ran a town, would you allow only blacks, or whites, or some other shade of people to live there? What makes you think no one else who might run a town could not possibly have the same honorable views you have?

In any case, if there were such towns, and they were competing, I assure you some company would certainly take advantage of the market some other town stupidly through away, no matter what color it was.

Where is the check on the company's power?

What power? If you own property, should there be a check on your power to use your property the way you like. No check is required. No company is going to be interested in owning a town unless there is a profit to be made. If there is no one in the town it is probably not going to be very profitable. If the town does not offer advantages to people to live their, (protection of their property and liberty, for example), no one will. Such a town cannot oppress it citizens because they will just leave. It could not, for example, tax the rich citizens for the sake of providing for the usual collections of parasites most towns have. The rich will just go away.

(Now, if a town does not offer free goodies for the parasites, they will go away instead. It just might be that they will not find any town that offers them a free ride. Maybe this is what you had in mind by not being able to "obtain the option to live," but no one has a right to an "option to live," at someone else's expense.)

There are problems with this company owned town idea, but not the ones you suggest, I think.

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 5/02, 6:31pm)

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 5/03, 6:26am)

Post 12

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 7:56pm

Hi Snow Dog, Don,

Don said: Ultimately, the question seems to boil down to "why do people hold irrational ideas?"

Oh yes. It is a great mystery. Human beings are the only creatures who fail to use the one faculty their nature provides them for success, and do it intentionally, because they can. It seems almost absurd.

Part of the answer obviously is that many people just do not have the mental horsepower required to deal with most of the harder questions. Accepting someone else's plausible answers is just about the best they can do. The mysterious part is all those people you and I know who seem perfectly capable of reason but use it to defy its proper use.

Here is another answer from the Autonomist which I have extracted from the article:  "Truth & Superstition." (Note: I mean by, "superstition," the intentional holding of "irrational ideas.")



A Secret Loathing

Reality is ruthless. Defy reality, and it will destroy you. Refuse to work, and you will starve. Refuse to learn, and the mistakes you make in your ignorance will kill you.

Reality is demanding. You must conform to the nature of reality all the time, because the moment you let up, it will strike you down. Stop paying attention, just for a few moments, while driving on the highway at 70 miles per hour. Don't bother paying your bills for a month. Forget you insulin injections for a day. Just forget where little Sarah is for a while at the Mall.

Reality is cruel. Disease, death, disaster strike without regard to anyone's position or opinions. The world is full of destruction and misery, though most of it is created by other men. But all of nature is cruel and the entire chain of life is one of death, killing, and being killed.

Reality is unforgiving. You've made a mistake, but the law forgives you, your parents and friends forgive you, you even manage to forgive yourself, but reality never forgives. It may be a forgivable mistake, but the dead animal cannot be made alive again, the pregnant girl cannot be made "unpregnant", (at least she can never have her virginity restored,) you cannot cancel what you have done, ever! Have you been unfaithful once, then you will always have been unfaithful once. Did you steal something once, then you can never claim always to have been honest. You do something stupid and loose an arm, leg, or put out your own or someone else's eye. You may never do another thing so foolish, but you will never have the arm, leg, or eye, yours or another's, restored.

While it is true that reality is ruthless, demanding, and unforgiving, cruelty cannot really be attributed to reality, even though all the things listed as cruel are true in nature, the evaluation of them as cruel is a subjective judgement. This characterization of reality is only a partial view, the view of one whose knowledge is primarily irrational and superstitious.

It is this view, however, though seldom made explicit, that is the motivator for our mysterious factor, the cause of universal superstition. Mankind, generally hates reality, just because mankind does view reality as ruthless, demanding, cruel, and unforgiving.

What mankind wishes for is a reality that is pliable, easy-going, kind, and forgiving.
At bottom, mankind hates reality, hates the necessity of having to work hard all the time, hates the necessity of having to learn so much, hates never being able to act on whim, or passion, or impulse without consequences, hates knowing they cannot do wrong and get away with it, hates knowing you cannot get something for nothing.

What mankind wants is exemption from consequences and a shortcut to success, wealth, happiness, or whatever else their current whims and fancies convince them they want. Reason does not show them how to have or achieve what they want the way they want it. Reason only enables them to understand the truth that describes reality as it is. They don't want truth, either. The truth just condemns them for their hatred of reality. They hate the truth, too.

Here, finally, is the secret, that unrevealed factor, the mystery of why almost all men prefer their superstitions to the truth.

At the heart of all superstitious beliefs, sometimes explicit, but always implicit, is the promise that there is something more than reality, something above reality, something which cancels the requirements of reality, a secret that enables those who know it to rise above mere reality, to defy it and get away with it. Superstition, which is never called superstition, is a magic wand that makes exist what in reality cannot exist, a metaphysical wild card that makes one automatically a winner, the universal "get-out-of-jail-free" card that allows one to escape the consequences of their choices and actions, the flying carpet that defies all of reality to give its owner a free ride to success and happiness.


This, I think is the motive for all irrationality: "At the heart of all superstitious beliefs, sometimes explicit, but always implicit, is the promise that there is something more than reality, something above reality, something which cancels the requirements of reality, a secret that enables those who know it to rise above mere reality, to defy it and get away with it."

Regi

Post 13

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 9:08pm

Don't understimate our opponents. Utilitarians are rarely arbitrary. They have calculated standards by which to evaluate actions and outcomes. The standards are usually flawed, but not arbitrary.

But they would have to be arbitrary because whatever standards they used to develop their rules would have to be arbitrary. I'm sure they've put some thought into this, but any acton dedicated to the cause of something other than oneself, is made for an arbitrary reason. Nature doesn't require it.

Perhaps an example is in order? Do you have any examples of calculated standards by which utilitarian rules could be developed?

Craig

Post 14

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 7:52am

Hi Snowdog and Reggie,

Personal correction: Marsh v. Alabama concerns a Jehova's witness being prevented from distributing literature in a corporate town, not the prevention of a black person from living in the town. I was thinking of another case concerning the prevention of a black person to live in a neighborhood. I think the case name was Shelley v. Kraemer...maybe Burton v. Wilmingon...not sure.

Now to Snowdog. Maybe we mean different things by "arbitrary." I mean: a decision without reason; made on whim; without standard. Like I said before, Utilitarians, with reason, aggregate the pleasures of all. Why? They figure that if meeting the happiness of one is good, then meeting the happiness of two is better, then three, etc. It's flawed reasoning, but reasoning nonetheless. Had they flipped a coin to choose between maximizing the happiness of one versus the happiness of all -- that would've been arbitrary.

Now to Reggie,

And the danger is what? You do not believe the ownership of property includes deciding who may and who may not use your property?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Here's why. If a private actor assumes the position of a government, then that actor is just as much a danger as any other government. If governments need checks on their power, then actors who assume the role of governments need the checks on their power. Tyranny is tyranny, corruption corruption.

Do you really believe companies buying land and deciding who can live on it could possibly make the whole world unavailable to some people?

Practically speaking, yes. The livable world might be out there but too far out of these people's reach. It's not a question of the whole world, just the world available to these people. But this is a digression. More on point is the question: Should a government entity be allowed to say "no blacks allowed"? Sure, if the blacks are able, they can just move away to live under some government without this ordinance. Should they?

Jordan

Post 15

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 8:52pm

Now to Snowdog. Maybe we mean different things by "arbitrary." I mean: a decision without reason; made on whim; without standard. Like I said before, Utilitarians, with reason, aggregate the pleasures of all. Why? They figure that if meeting the happiness of one is good, then meeting the happiness of two is better, then three, etc. It's flawed reasoning, but reasoning nonetheless. Had they flipped a coin to choose between maximizing the happiness of one versus the happiness of all -- that would've been arbitrary.

But back to my original point. It's all arbitrary simply because the initial decision to serve the 'whole' is made without reason; made on whim; made without standard. Their reasons are arbitrary because the same reasons can be used to serve 'the nation', 'the race', 'God', or 'the toaster'. Am I wrong here? Does the arbitrary aspect of their chosen ethical system become mute when they come up with a reason for their actions, even though the reason does not derive from any natural requirement?

Now, if they were seeking benevolence, for their own selfish reasons, then their actions stop being arbitrary, because their lives as conceptual beings, require that they engage themselves with the world around them, and if their chosen career is an application of benevolence, then such an application is simply a fulfillment of Life's requirement. They would then be acting as Nature required.

But to develop an ethical system around benevolence, is to move outside of ethics. It ceases to be an issue of Right and Wrong, because there is no limit to the number of objects they could choose for such a system. "Let's work for the whole!" Why?

Craig

Post 16

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 8:03am