Yesterday, when Rohan tried to use utilitarianism in an argument, he was promptly shut down by Dr. Tisdall. While I see where Dr. Tisdall was coming from, I think we must acknowledge how utilitarianism is interpreted differently between Republicans and Democrats. Over break, I read Justice, a book by Michael Sandel that outlines several philosophies towards society and government. In his chapter on utilitarianism, he outlines the absolutely different ways utilitarianism can be followed in the short run and the long run.
-
Since utilitarianism works to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people, in the short-term, the idea is very liberal. The idea is that $1,000 brings a lot more happiness to a poor man than it takes away from an extremely rich man, so it should be transferred to the poor man. This idea can be continued all the way until the richest man is worth $50,001 and the poorest man is worth $49,999. Since the poorer man will still receive slightly more happiness from the dollar, it should be transferred to him according to utilitarianism. This process thus leads us on a rapid path towards Communism.
-
However, as Dr. Tisdall was alluding to, utilitarianism is very libertarian in the long-term. The idea here is that thirty years from now, regulation and the dilution of incentives hamper economic growth. By freeing the economy and taxpayers, we can become more efficient and productive as a society, increasing economic growth. The rule of 72 illustrates this effect. Therefore, thirty years from now we will be able to witness far higher standards of living for most everyone. As this does the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the long-term, this is truly utilitarian. This process thus leads ua on a rapid path towards pure Capitalism.
-
The topic of utilitarianism is interesting because it shows a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans: the short-term vs. long-term. In so many of today’s issues, timing separates the parties. In war, the economy, and society, Republicans are concerned with America’s future. However, in all of these topics, Democrats have been concerned with America in the present. Personally, I favor the long-term, and that plays a large basis in my leaning right. I want an America that is long-lasting and gradual, not one of short bursts. Even if I’m dead, I want my grandchildren to be able to live in a world where the USA rules and democracy roams free.
-
So Democrats like Rohan are wrong in trying to prove a point with utilitarianism. They really should go right ahead and admit they are prioritizing the short-term. This isn’t about some radical social philosophy. No, it’s about Democrats surrendering tomorrow for progress today.
Good post Zach.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would change the last sentence to "surrendering progress tomorrow for comfort today."
ReplyDelete1. a truly impressive and important insight. It took me 2 decades to come to this understanding. Well written as well. Here is a nice example from a good blog site (coutesy of Evan): http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/01/almost-unimaginable-africans-and.html
ReplyDelete2. there is a second, and to me, more important moral argument to be made. When you realize that wealth is created by individuals, by their own talent, risk and effort, that wealth represents something more than the things it buys. It is a tangible measure of the spiritual dimension to creation, a pride in ownership and accomplishment. To take that away from me, to give to someone who has not created wealth, requires a very high burden of need. This why you hear me talk about the difference between hardship and suffering. A mass disaster, like a famine, flood or forest fire, requires a marshalling of forces best met by government. We will, as a society, treat our leukemic children. People died of starvation and dust inhalation in the Great Depression. Government must act.
Taking my wealth for someone's hardship is quite another matter. It not only offends me, the wealth creator, with its unfairness, it also harms the recipient. Overcoming hardship by one's own efforts is one of the greatest satisfactions of life. Ask any older person about their happiness, and they will describe their interpersonal relationships and the adversities overcome. It is corrupting to a person's well-being to deny them the opportunity to master the circumstances of their lives. "Necessity is the mother of invention". This is why I warn you to fear success, not failure. A good political argument should include different opinions on where to draw the line in that grey zone between hardship and suffering.
3. I also include in my definition of utilitarianism "... and the least harm to the fewest number of people." Thus, slavery and massacre of the Indians cannot be justified.
From a technical perspective, there are a lot of problems with utilitarianism, most notably Nozick's utility monster. It's instructive to try to construct a formal version of utilitarianism--i.e. construct a utility funciton--which will prevent people from misinterpreting it, as they always do. (Unfortunately, this turns out to be incredibly difficult)
ReplyDelete