…have come to a grinding halt, and central banks around the world are greasing them to get them running again – this (or essentially this, for I don’t recollect the exact phrase) is what I heard a news anchor on BBC World say a few days back in relation to the financial disaster that has shaken the very foundation of the US economy, and thereby that of the world economy. I switched off the television set in disgust; but newspapers are not exactly saying anything different. So there is no way one can follow the news without hearing someone or the other cursing the “free market” for having engineered the current mess.
First things first, the present crisis was not created by the “free market” because a free market, the main requirement of laissez-faire capitalism does not exist anywhere in the world – not even in the US. Anyone who thinks otherwise understands neither markets nor capitalism, and could just as well think of Osama Bin Laden as a benevolent old uncle who’s blowing people up just because he’s a bit senile and who doesn’t really want to harm anybody. The US is a socialist country – the United Socialist States of America – it has been that way since the late 19th century – and so is every other country in the world; the only difference is in the degree. (Some right thinking) economists, businessman and politicians have pleaded over the centuries that the government should keep its dirty hands to itself and not interfere with the economy, but such pleadings have always fallen on deaf ears and intellectual barbarians like JM Keynes (“In the long run, we are all dead” – unfortunately, while he is, his ideas aren’t) helped make government the big and nosy monster that everybody is familiar with.
Capitalism is an economic system where there is minimal (zero) government interference – it is purely the buyers and sellers who make up the economy. And since the US decided to become a “welfare state”, a country where the government decides to get into the unending business of social welfare – an exercise as futile as fighting Hydra, it cannot claim to be one. Over the years, the US has-
- Passed antitrust legislation to “protect” the public from monopolies forgetting the fact that the only monopolies realistically possible in a society of rational and intelligent men is one granted and enforced by the government, thereby robbing some firm’s freedom to merge into another or increase in size and benefit from resultant economies of scale. Apparently bureaucrats understand business more than businessmen do.
- Created the Federal Reserve as the “lender of last resort”, placed the entire US banking industry under regulation and abolished the gold standard that tied the hands of the government by preventing it from printing money in excess of the stock backed by gold, an act that is the root cause of all inflation. In Rothbard’s words, and he is so right, it legalized counterfeiting [for itself]. Read his essay The Case Against The Fed (pdf), and then go hold Bernanke’s feet to the fire. And the world smirks at Zimbabwe’s attempts at curtailing hyperinflation by printing 100 billion dollar notes that can only buy a couple of loaves of bread. So ironic.
- Created financial behemoths (Mae and Mac) to facilitate the provision of “affordable housing” to people who would have otherwise not qualified for the same, and then “leaned” on “private” banks to go ahead and do the dirty work. And then they blame the “free market” for it.
- Imposed a variety of taxes and introduced so many complicated laws that it created a new profession of bloodsucking bureaucrats whose only job is to see that people give up a part of their income to feed an army of bums or to build bridges to nowhere and so on and if they don’t pay up, send them to jail, and tax consultants and lawyers. While some accountants and lawyers would still be necessary in a laissez faire society to negotiate contracts between willing parties and to manage and audit the books of accounts of firms, those who profit from Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy would have to look for another job. Non-voluntary taxation is essentially a protection racket being run by government – pay up or suffer the consequences.
While banks share a major part of the blame for the current crisis, not looking into the quality of loan applicants for example, the fact remains that bad loans are a part of the business – if I borrow money from someone, invest the same in a business, and suffer huge losses, I won’t be able to pay him back. The thing that went wrong here was that the people who were left holding the baby had no clue of the risk they were taking and the contagion spread without a corresponding spread in accountability. And the government – its attitude towards regulation which results in people assuming that they no longer need to pay attention to the quality of their investments since the government is “looking out for them”, the way the banking system works, and government spending money that appears like magic from thin air – cannot escape its share of the blame.
To prevent future crises similar in scale, a few things need to be done. We have to end the anarchy of “fiat currency” and return to a 100% gold reserve banking system. All government regulation of the banking industry has to go and people have to take up the responsibility of managing their own risks. Social welfare programs – the dole, education, health care – should be left to temples, churches and charities and not to the government. And production and pricing of goods and services should be left to the market. The Fed has to go, and so should the government’s nasty habit of spending money it does not have – by printing it. Basically, the US government has to undergo a financial neutering. It is difficult and it will take time, but any step in this direction will be a welcome one. Unfortunately, that is hardly going to happen any time soon. What will happen instead is more regulation and more restrictions. Crooks will always find ways to make money on every opportunity, and it is always the honest businessmen and honest taxpayer who will suffer – because of the government, and because of the financially, philosophically and politically illiterate people who vote it into power.
People who advocate a return to a 100% gold reserve banking and putting a stop to government spending money it does not have are routinely ridiculed and referred to as “gold bugs”. Well, the gold bugs have bitten hard this time, and the bite is going to cost the US government upwards of 700 billion dollars in treatment costs. “The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America,” a Senator Bunnings is supposed to have noted. Unfortunately he is unaware that he is referring to incidents that happened before World War I.
The world has never seen capitalism in action. When it does, it will be something that would have no parallel in human history when it comes to productivity and freedom. So stop blaming a non-existent capitalism and free market for problems created by the government and those who came up with methods that enabled them to game the system. To know what capitalism really is, read George Reisman’s Capitalism – A Treatise on Economics (pdf). More importantly, get a copy of Ayn Rand’s Capitalism – The Unknown Ideal to read a philosophical defense of capitalism. “Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future —if mankind is to have a future,” she said.
Note: K.M. has written a similar post on the mistaken notion that capitalism is to blame for the current mess.
Aristotle The Geek 
Comments
I hear you well and truly :|
I’ve felt compelled to write on this in the last 1 week: Listen to those voices in the wilderness, Why Oh Why?, and Propping up a house of cards.
And the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was really the Union of Soviet Capitalist Republics.
The world has indeed never seen pure capitalism in action, but it has also never seen pure socialism either. These extremes on the scale remain untested and untried.
Well, I am defending capitalism, not socialism. And capitalism is the only system that doesn’t follow the perverse philosophy of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Pure capitalism will mean the elimination of force from human relationships and elimination of perverse government intervention. But pure socialism will necessarily mean more government intervention and more thumb screws. Unless every human being suddenly grows a heart of gold, socialism equals loss of freedom. And if humans really manage to do that, we won’t need socialism anyway since capitalism doesn’t demand that men stop indulging in charity. But socialism does demand that humans prostrate before a higher authority called government.
Another thing, you cannot have a bigger experiment in socialism than the USSR – an unimaginably powerful communist government that controlled the country with an iron hand. If socialism failed there, and killed millions in the process, we can be sure that its not going to work anywhere else.
Pure capitalism may eliminate force, but it will almost certainly increase coercion. And will certainly result in many people becoming too poor to sustain their own lives, or the lives of their loved ones. It is for that reason that a small amount of socialism was added to the capitalist mix – because there are some things that are more important than freedom.
And the USSR was no more as socialist than the US is capitalist. Because of the politics of communist states, problems weren’t properly reported (and were covered up), so the central authorities couldn’t (or didn’t) manage the economy properly. And they didn’t produce the goods their populace required/demanded. As a result, barter systems developed from the very beginning.
Just thought I’d point out that I don’t necessarily agree with either socialism nor capitalism. They both have downsides and benefits, and as such I don’t think any mix of the two (nor any extreme) will be a perfect economy.
“And will certainly result in many people becoming too poor to sustain their own lives, or the lives of their loved ones. It is for that reason that a small amount of socialism was added to the capitalist mix – because there are some things that are more important than freedom.”
There is nothing more important than freedom. And when you say something is – what you are essentially advocating is slavery. When you say that the government, and society, has the right to decide what I am allowed and not allowed to do with the money that I earn out of the work that I do, it is precisely that. Socialism is a system where the productive are enslaved by the non-productive. If a group of people cannot sustain themselves under capitalism, it means that have no abilities to offer – they can’t cook, or sweep, or read, or write, or drive, or dance, or sing, or talk, or provide any service that someone else will be freely willing to pay for, and therefore these people can only exist by eating other people alive – not physically, but by making the government rob from them and hand over the spoils to the “unsustainables”.
I quote Ayn Rand, one of the strongest philosophical defenders of capitalism-
“And the USSR was no more as socialist than the US is capitalist…And they didn’t produce the goods their populace required/demanded.”
The USSR was one of the best experiments in socialism. And it did not suffer from any “problems”. The “problems” were a natural consequence of socialism. A market where billions of transactions take place every day cannot be managed by central planning by a group of people – even if they happen to be of the highest intellectual caliber. That is a disaster waiting to happen, And it did. Socialism guarantees that the market will fail. And the more socialism tends towards communism, the higher the rate of failure. The government doesn’t produce anything. Individuals produce it based on the demand for a particular good in the market. And they will only produce it if they can profit from it. There is only one moral way to indulge in non-profit activities – one based on voluntary charity. Capitalism does not prohibit charity. Socialism forces it on the unwilling.
“Pure capitalism may eliminate force, but it will almost certainly increase coercion.”
Any transaction between two willing parties cannot be termed as one being done under coercion. In a capitalist society, the government would protect its citizens against coercion – initiation of force, that is.
If a vegetable farmer who happens to be the only major source of potatoes in a particular region charges extremely high prices for his product, people are free to choose whether they want to deal with him, or buy potatoes from the next town. If they choose to buy from the farmer, this won’t be coercion. Coercion is when a man makes another sign an agreement surrendering his rights to his vegetable farm under threat of grievous bodily harm. And the government in a capitalist society is duty bound – in theory – to protect the victim of coercion.
In a socialist society on the other hand, the government is duty bound – in theory (and the theory is practiced extremely well, as we have seen) – to initiate force against – coerce – every one who does not follow the socialist policies of the government – pay arbitrary taxes, follow arbitrary regulations, and pay a ransom – protection money – to the government in order to be allowed to survive and do business on the other hand.
There is nothing more important than freedom. And capitalism is the only system that can guarantee individual freedom. Any system that says that one group of people can enslave another group just because the second group is more productive than they can ever be is a perverse one.
Maybe not, but even so, the fact remains that there are things more important than your freedom – namely, the freedom of many others.
It is for that reason that you are not free to kill whoever you wish – because murder would compromise the freedom of another far more than forbidding murder compromises your freedom. Likewise, taking away your freedom to control part of your property is justifiable because it prevents somebody else from losing a greater freedom (the freedom to control their body and life).
This is a good definition, because socialism would consequently be defined as the polar opposite – a social system where no property is privately owned. And, as I have already said, no such system has ever existed.
And what if this vegetable farmer has a monopoly on all potatoes, everywhere? The buyer no longer has any choice – he has been coerced, through economic force rather than physical force, into paying that price for potatoes.
There is no such thing as “freedom to commit murder”. If you think there is, you don’t understand the meaning of freedom. Freedom refers to the right to life and all related rights. It does not refer to the right to rape, right to steal, right to kill, right to enslave, right to demand that others provide for your every “need”, the right to demand that others lick your feet.
A person committing murder is infringing on another person’s right to life. But a person buying a house of his own is not infringing on another person’s right to buy a house of his own and neither is the potato farmer forcing others not to grow their own potatoes. If the potato farmer is so intelligent and productive that he can corner the world market for potatoes while every other human being alive can do nothing but watch on, then he deserves every cent he charges and the others deserve to pay the price because they are so unintelligent that neither do they have the skills to grow potatoes, nor do they have the skills to start tomato farming and exchange potatoes for tomatoes, or pumpkin farming, or rice farming, or start a shoe manufacturing facility, or become an accountant.
“Likewise, taking away your freedom to control part of your property is justifiable because it prevents somebody else from losing a greater freedom (the freedom to control their body and life).”
How is it that people can come and kick me out of my house, eat the food that I have cooked out of provisions that I have purchased out of money that I earned by slogging my ass off, and it is termed as their freedom to control their body and life when what they are doing is enslaving me by forcing me to work not for myself but for them? This is what is communism – sacrifice of the individual for the society.
Maybe when there is a major famine, while I won’t have the “right to commit murder”, these people will be “justified” in controlling part of my property – raiding my store of grains for example, or even cutting me into a thousand pieces, cooking my body parts and eating me so that they don’t lose a “greater freedom” – “the freedom to control their body and life” As per your world view, people are unproductive, lazy sloths who don’t care to think or work but want to exercise their “freedom” by murdering that of another.
I repeat, there is nothing more important than freedom, mine and that of every other individual. The freedom and rights of rational men never come into conflict. In a society of cannibals however, there is nothing but conflict – every man’s right to life means every other man loses the “right to eat that man alive”.
You say you support the right to life, but you still insist that you are free to take actions that will result in the death of others. If you don’t support things like social health care programs, people will die. Therefore, to not do so is morally equivalent to murder.
I think that accurately summarises my position on this issue. Nobody deserves to die (that said, I do agree that the death of one can be justified if it prevents the death of many).
The fact that America did not attack the USSR and China in the 1940s and 1950s meant that tens of millions of people died there at the hands of communists. You mean to say every American is a murderer? Non-action resulting in death cannot be subject to moral condemnation, action is.
The right to my life refer to is something that “prevents someone else from using me as his property or killing me”. It does not mean the right to demand that others provide for my life. My right to my life does not mean that when I find myself drowning in a swimming pool, I have the right to demand that you put your life at risk to come and save mine. And that is what social health care programs are all about – when you steal a family man’s money to provide dentures (under a social health care program) to an eighty year old man, you are preventing the man from spending the money on buying books for his daughter. In a free non-cannibalistic society – all charity will be private – it will not be based on theft. The old man will probably get his dentures because well off people would probably donate some money to charities to help the not-so-well-off people in their locality.
“the death of one can be justified if it prevents the death of many”
Never! In that case the murder of a hundred million can be justified if it saves a billion – the plunder and destruction of America and Americans would be justifiable so that the Chinese and Africans and Latin Americans can enjoy a better standard of living.
A pseudo-distinction, though a commonly made one. There is no such thing as non-action. You can either do something, or do nothing. In your example, I can either act to save you, or act not to save you. They are both choices, they are both actions.
Not feeding your children and allowing them to die, when you could have easily saved them, is still murder. Not taking seeking medical care for your child when they clearly require still leaves you responsible for their death.
I see no difference.
That’s right – basic utilitarianism. But I doubt killing 300 million Americans would prevent the death of >300 million others.
Its not a pseudo-distinction. Action is doing something. Doing nothing is not called action. A stone lying on the ground is not acting when it “lies on the ground”.
There is a difference between taking up a moral responsibility for those who cannot take care of themselves (like giving birth to children or adopting them) and having a millstone forcibly tied around your neck. Parents have the moral responsibility to take care of their children. I do not have the moral responsibility to provide food and clothing to every beggar sleeping on the street. And if he dies due to cold, I do not become a murderer.
Utilitarianism is nonsense. And using it to justify murder is perverse. Under utilitarian thinking, killing 300 million Americans and plundering trillions of dollars will pay for itself within a generation – millions of African children will no longer die – they will give birth to millions more and within 30 odd years there will be more lives on earth in this way than there would have been if America would exist by itself.
Earth will then be a communist-socialist-cannibalistic-utilitarian paradise.
But what most people mean by inaction is not inaction. True, a person can’t be held accountable for not saving another when they too were incapacitated. What you have described as inaction is really acting in a way that doesn’t not result in harm to another (e.g. walking past a drowning person), which is obviously the same as acting in a way that results in harm to another (e.g. forcibly drowning a person).
I disagree. People are equals. Just as you are not more morally valuable than any other person, your family are not more morally valuable than any other.
No, libertarianism is nonsense. And using it to justify murder is perverse.
I doubt we can ever come to agreement. Your premises are so different to mine, how can we ever agree?
I have never argued with a utilitarian or consequentialist before. The theists, socialists and communists all have their points of weakness – they would scream if you accuse them of cannibalism or slavery, and would be full of moral indignation. So trying to convince you about my point of view might be difficult, but I can try.
Agreement is possible when the mind is open to ideas – not pliable, but open. Each of us will try to stick to positions we have adopted over I don’t know how many years. But behind every position there is a philosophy. I last changed my views a decade ago. And there is no turning back now because individualism – or whatever else you call it – appeals to my sense of justice.
The problem with utilitarianism or consequentialism – I only understand it as “the end-justifies-the-means principle” – is that it removes man and his mind from the equation. It does not consider the origin and nature of man or existence or the means of survival, but treats man instead as a commodity discovered lying on the ground and to be used as such, or worse – an animal.
Every man has a natural right to life – Objectivism derives it from “natural rights” and the Austrian School of Economics (Murray Rothbard) derives it from the concept of self-ownership. Essentially both are the same. And the only way man can survive if he is able to acquire and keep property. That is how property rights come into existence. And his is true for every man – no man owns any one else, and every man is as free as the next one to go about his life in a manner of his choosing, as long as he does not harm another man.
Under your utilitarian view however, freedom and rights seem to have no meaning. Aristotle says of democracy (and this is true of your view of moral-value-equality) – “Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.” Just because all people are free, it does not mean that all automatically have 20-20 vision, or can compose a soundtrack or write a bestseller. So constructing an entire theory based on such assumptions does not make any sense. As far as I am concerned my family is definitely more valuable to me than my neighbors, and I definitely consider myself to be morally superior to any murderer on some death row in some part of the world.
Further, the question of sacrificing X or X’s property to a particular end – who decides it and on what basis? If no one is morally superior to me, no one has the right to decide to sacrifice me. How do you justify that?
Fair enough. I wasn’t always a utilitarian, so perhaps you are right.
I don’t think it does. Utilitarianism may not consider the nature and origin of man, but it does consider means to survival (in the sense that survival is, usually, considered a better outcome than death) and the value of man (though utilitarians differ on how they derive this value and how valuable they consider man to be).
Utilitarianism is compatible with such views, and in fact such things are often considered when deciding which act causes the best consequences.
It’s entirely possible, though not feasible in our society, for man to survive without owning any property.
In a situation where your death would prevent the death of many others, or where taking your property would prevent harm occurring to many others, then you can see that the situation doesn’t just involve your rights, but also the rights of others. Utilitarianism (specifically, act utilitarianism) states that the right course of action is the one that has the best consequences – i.e. fewer people’s rights being violated, or the most autonomy/life/happiness (or whatever is under consideration) for all.
All moral agents have, by definition, the responsibility to make moral decisions, and under utilitarian views the right decision will always result in the least amount of sacrifice for people in general (yet may still involve sacrifice for or of some).
“Utilitarianism is compatible with such views, and in fact such things are often considered when deciding which act causes the best consequences.”
Natural rights and self-ownership means no one has the moral right to harm me and my property for his own benefit. How, then can your version of utilitarianism be compatible with this?
“It’s entirely possible, though not feasible in our society, for man to survive without owning any property.”
Property does not only refer to physical property but also to everything man creates out of his own labor. Under your version of utilitarianism, a cobbler in a particular society could be condemned to a life of making shoes without anyone paying for it because while he is the only one suffering, the whole society will gain by not having to pay for the labor of manufacturing shoes. Basically, how do you measure what is good and what is bad. What is the standard? And how arbitrary is it?
“In a situation where your death would prevent the death of many others, or where taking your property would prevent harm occurring to many others, then you can see that the situation doesn’t just involve your rights, but also the rights of others.”
How would you define “right”? If I become a murderer because I don’t attempt to save a drowning man, how is it that this bunch of people won’t become murderers if they kill me for their own self-interest? Simply because they are more in number? In effect, it is majoritarianism at work. Why complicate things so much and not instead, follow Nietzsche – “might is right”?
“Utilitarianism (specifically, act utilitarianism) states that the right course of action is the one that has the best consequences – i.e. fewer people’s rights being violated, or the most autonomy/life/happiness (or whatever is under consideration) for all.”
Does utilitarianism bother to find out what the source of happiness is, or how property comes into existence, and why a “right” is called a “right”? As I said, it does not bother with things like that but is only concerned with the end. Life is not abstact mathematics where you assign the same weight to Einstein and Hitler and go about moralizing on that basis.
The main question is why is the “happiness of the greatest number” moral and more important than the right of an individual to his own life and the fruits of his own efforts?
It’s a simple cost-benefit analysis. If your harm is less than the harm that would result to me if I didn’t do the act, then the act is justified (e.g. stealing your phone to call an ambulance to save my life).
You can say that ‘harming another is always wrong’, but that isn’t very helpful when all your choices would result in harm to others.
This is the greatest source of disagreement among utilitarians, but usually the standard involves something like happiness, autonomy and/or harm.
As for your example, it is for that reason (and all your other examples) that ‘rule utilitarianism’ developed (in contrast to ‘act utilitarianism’). Under ‘rule utilitarianism’, it is not the act of enslaving a certain cobbler but rules like ‘one must never enslave another’ or ‘one must never enslave another unless lives are at stake’ that are analysed in terms of consequences.
What is right is what results in the greatest good for the greatest number.
Why isn’t it?
Turn the question on its head – why are the rights of one individual more important than the rights of a greater number of individuals?
A society or any other group is only a collection of individuals – nothing more (more about the importance of the individual, “rights”, the mind, necessity of considering the process of survival etc. later). So, when you (or your version of utilitarianism – act utilitarianism) say that “what is right is what results in the greatest good for the greatest number,” you say it by allocating an arbitrary number of happiness points to individuals, and seeing which group of individuals (group being one or more individuals sharing the same end) has the most points when it comes to the “rightness” or “wrongness” of a particular action.
But there is a problem with the “greatest good for the greatest number” idea. Stefan Sencerz says–
So, you could either talk about the “total happiness” or the “total people benefiting”, or the “average happiness” at the end of the action, and that’s assuming A’s happiness and B’s happiness are fungible – that the pleasure derived by Einstein enjoying his night working on theories in physics and Hitler torturing Jews in a gas chamber are interchangeable. In Sencerz’s example – maximization of total happiness will mean #1 is right, maximization of the “total people benefiting” means #2 is right, and maximization of the average happiness of the population at the end of the action will mean #1 is right, because an addition of 1000 to an existing stock of happiness will produce a better average on an unchanged denominator than the addition of 500.
Now lets deal with the three cases one by one-
Total utilitarianism (happiness)- If all we wish to do is maximize the total happiness of a particular society, then every action that has a non-negative marginal utility is right. So, redistribution of wealth would be right because while the rich would become unhappy, the poor would become happy and chances are the net effect would be positive. Every time a new member is added to society, another round of egalitarianism should follow. And soon we would end up with the Parfitian problem of “The Repugnant Conclusion” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). There is another challenge to TU – Nozick’s utility monster – an entity that is so efficient at generating utility that the sacrifice of the whole society to it would be the best way to increase TU of the group (again group being one or more individuals). You could challenge this saying this is not possible, but why not? So, effectively, TU will end up in one kind of dystopia or the other.
Total utilitarianism (people)- If you don’t want to maximize the happiness, but the number of people who are happy – one man, one happiness point – you are in for another dystopia. While the utility monster is defeated, the Repugnant Conclusion is not.
Average utilitarianism – In this case, it would be best if we start liquidating those in society whose happiness is below average. For every such liquidation, the average would increase. So a group of one or more individuals with the highest capacity of happiness should be the ones that remain standing.
Also read Average and Total utilitarianism (Wikipedia)
The thing is the very basis on utilitarianism, as I see it depends on the assumption that happiness of individuals is both measurable and fungible – which is not the case. I can grant that I can measure my own happiness as a matter of degree – I could rank it for example – but the fact remains that the happiness I receive from listening to music is different from the one I receive from having a good meal or reading the good book. What I don’t grant is that my happiness is in someway interchangeable with that of someone else – that the happiness X derives from drinking wine can be interchanged with the one I derive from watching a film. In the face of this, the morality of utilitarianism is suspect, as I see it.
Consider these paragraphs from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Consequentialism–
It is similar to most examples I have offered, but it shows that utilitarianism has no concept of “crime” or “fairness” or “rights”.
Right and Wrong
Now lets come to the question of determination of right and wrong. So, “the greatest good of the greatest number” or however else you define it determines what is right or wrong. The question is when is the decision to be made – before or after the action? In the former case, what happens if the intended consequences do not materialize but people are left worse off than before? In the latter case, its a question of hindsight – the conclusion is there for all to see. So, we might have a situation where the decision to do right which then turns out to be wrong will itself be termed wrong.
Now the question is, what is the point of assigning ratings to actions if you are not going to use them? Will these “rights and wrongs” be used to punish people? If so, how is it fair to punish people after seeing the effect of the action – something that the actor could probably not have foreseen? Or is it that only motives matter, and consequences are irrelevant?
Now consider another example (think I have read a similar example in one of Rand’s works, don’t know which one). There are two opposing groups in a society – one small, the other large; one with property, the other without. Egalitarianism demands that the property be redistributed. Now what if one night the “haves” go and butcher all the “have-nots”, leaving just one of them alive. The balance of power has changed. Now what is right and what is wrong, and “who is doing the deciding”?
The Individual, his rights and his values
When utilitarians say “the greatest good of the greatest number”, what does that mean? The answer is maximization of happiness. But the answer does not tell me why is the maximization of happiness the primary goal, except for referring to the pleasure-pain mechanism. But the mechanism is one that relates to the individual, not society. Further, it still does not justify the morality of following it.
Ayn Rand too refers to the mechanism, but as something that alerts the individual to the concepts of “good and evil” and “life and death”. But happiness is a higher concept than pleasure and cannot be the standard of measurement of ends. And this is what she has to say in “The Objectivist Ethics” (The Virtue of Selfishness)-
Utilitarianism fails to consider that man is a rational animal who needs the “right” to his own body and efforts in order to survive. Theoretically he could survive in prison – being commanded to sit, stand, eat, drink or do whatever the warden demands of him – but that is not what survival refers to. As Rand points out, the only thing utilitarianism will lead to is a dystopia because no rational man will allow himself to be enslaved for the “common good”. It is man who invents and produces. Food, factories, cars and knowledge of medicine do not grow on trees. And any “philosophical system” that forgets ethics, or divorces it from reality can never be the right one.
Morality does not exist in a vacuum. It depends on a system of values. Ends do not determine values. The values determine the ends. And this is what Rand said about values in “What is Capitalism?” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)-
So under an altruistic “philosophical system”, man, “individual rights” (there are no other rights), freedom, justice, right and wrong become putty – something that any group that is in the majority can mold according to their wishes.
So by not considering the reality of man’s existence and the process of sustenance of life, and only considering man and his efforts as a means to some undefinable ends, although utilitarianism ends up advocating happiness – it will only produce dystopia.
Finally-
“Turn the question on its head – why are the rights of one individual more important than the rights of a greater number of individuals?”
The answer is – assume individuals don’t exist. Now think of society. The question is a “stolen concept.” The concept “society” cannot be conceived without referring to the concept “individual”. And as I said, rights are an attribute of an individual – someone who physically exists. Society is just a collection of individuals – its an idea – a universal.
Joshua and Aristotle,
Sorry for interrupting this incredible debate but I couldn’t resist. This is the best example I have seen of the strengths of this medium – if utilized properly, it allows one to put ones thoughts as clearly as possible into words, something that is not possible in conversation.
Joshua,
Since you have shown yourself to be capable of thinking in terms of ideas and holding on to the logical consequences of your positions, I hope you continue this debate to its conclusion. I would suggest you start by explaining why one needs a code of ethics (whether utilitarianism or egoism) at all. For the record, I am with Aristotle in this debate.