243623569.

doc DDW 2012

1
Util Good
Only utilitarianism takes into account the inevitability o sacriices and com!romise "
any other rame#ork is uto!ian and inevitably ails.
Nye, prof. of IR at Harvard University, 1986 (Joseph, Nuclear Ethics, p. !"#
$hether one accepts the %road conse&uentialist approach or chooses so'e other, 'ore eclectic (ay to include and reconcile the three
di'ensions of co'ple) 'oral issues, there (ill often %e a sense of uneasiness a%out the ans(ers, not *ust %ecause of the co'ple)ity of
the pro%le's %ut si'ply that there is no satisfactory solution to these issues + at least none that appears to avoid in practice (hat 'ost
'en (ould still re,ard as an intolera%le sacrifice of value. $hen value is sacrificed, there is often the pro%le' of dirty hands. Not
all ethical decisions are pure ones. -he a%solutist 'ay avoid the pro%le' of dirty hands, %ut often at the cost of havin, no hands at all.
.oral theory cannot %e rounded off and 'ade co'plete and tidy. -hat is part of the 'odern hu'an condition. /ut that does not
e)e'pt us fro' 'a0in, difficult 'oral choices.
$onlictin% moral claims are inevitable " this necessitates utilitarianism.
&ulholland' prof. of philosophy at the University of Newfoundland, 19(6 (Leslie, Journal of
Philosophy, June, p. 328)
or !any, the persuasiveness of utilitarianis! as a !oral theory lies in its power to provide a way out of
diffi"ulties arisin# fro! the "onfli"t of !oral prin"iples. $he "ontention that utilitarianis! per!its people to
override ri#hts in "ase of "onfli"t of prin"iples or in those "ases where so!e re"o#ni%ed utility re&uires that a
ri#ht 'e disre#arded, is then not an internal o'(e"tion to utilitarianis!. Nor does it even indi"ate a plausi'le
alternative to the "onvin"ed utilitarian. or hi!, utilitarianis! has its for"e partly in the "oheren"e and si!pli"ity of
the prin"iple in e)plainin# the !orality of su"h "ases.
The type of morality the aff tries to engage in is utopian because these theories were developed before
extinction became possible now the true moral self must be committed to bringing about the best
possible world and that necessitates util
*+ale )amieson, New ,or- University, ./10/0*. 1a!'rid#e Journals2 34hen Utilitarians 5hould 6e
7irtue $heorists, 3http2//www.(ournals."a!'rid#e.or#/a"tion/displayullte)t8
type9:;fid91<1.132;(id9;volu!e=d9;issue=d9<2;aid91<1.128;fullte)t$ype9>?;file=d95<9.38
2<8<@<<20.2A
1or present purposes I assu'e that our pro%le' is a 'oral pro%le'. I investi,ate utilitarian approaches to our pro%le' %ecause
utilitarianis', (ith its unapolo,etic focus on (hat (e %rin, a%out, is relatively (ell positioned to have so'ethin, interestin, to say
a%out our pro%le'. .oreover, since utilitarianis' is co''itted to the idea that 'orality re&uires us to %rin, a%out the %est possi%le
(orld, and ,lo%al environ'ental chan,e confronts us (ith e)tre'e, deleterious conse&uences, there is no escapin, the fact that, for
utilitarians, ,lo%al environ'ental chan,e presents us (ith a 'oral pro%le' of ,reat scope, ur,ency and co'ple)ity.
Bowever, = would hope that so!e of those who are not "ardC"arryin# utilitarians would also have interest in
this pro(e"t. 1onse&uen"es !atter, a""ordin# to any plausi'le !oral theory. Utilitarianis! ta-es the "on"ern
for "onse&uen"es to the li!it, and it is #enerally of interest to see where pure versions of various do"trines wind
up leadin# us. Doreover, = 'elieve that the #reat traditions in !oral philosophy should 'e viewed as !ore li-e
resear"h pro#ra!s than as finished theories that underwrite or i!ply parti"ular "ate"his!s. or this reason it
is interestin# to see how su""essfully a !oral tradition "an "ope with pro'le!s that were not envisioned 'y its
pro#enitors.
+!holdin% lie is the ultimate moral standard.
+yl and ,asmussen' profs. of philosophy at 6ellar!ine 1olle#e and 5t. JohnEs University, 19(1
(+ou#las +en and +ou#las, 3>eadin# No%i"-F, p. 200)
Last printed 9/0/2<<9 <@2<<2<< GD
1
243623569.doc DDW 2012
1
>and has spo-en of the ulti!ate end as the standard 'y whi"h all other ends are evaluated. 4hen the ends to
'e evaluated are "hosen ones the ulti!ate end is the standard for !oral evaluation. Life as the sort of thin# a
livin# entity is, then, is the ulti!ate standard of valueH and sin"e only hu!an 'ein#s are "apa'le of "hoosin#
their ends, it is the life as a hu!an 'ein#C!anIs life &ua !anCthat is the standard for !oral evaluation.
Util is ey to value of life it maximi!es happiness for the most people maing it the best framewor for
the policymaer and those whom are affected
*-mith 199*. 6oo- >eview2 Jonathan 5"hellEs ate of the Jarth and $he ?'olition,
www.t".u!n.edu/Ks!ith<9@/arti"les/LL2<11.$heL2<.ateL2<ofL2<theL2</arthL2<.pdfA
Utilitarianis! 'e#ins 'y #enerali%in# the hedonisti" pleasure prin"iple in ter!s of
happiness. $hen what is !oral or #ood is that whi"h 'rin#s an a#ent happiness. $his thesis is further
#enerali%ed to say that happiness should 'e se"ured for as !any a#ents in the "o!!unity as possi'le. Jvery
a"tion, therefore, should 'e !otivated in ter!s of tryin# to !a)i!i%e as !u"h happiness for as !any a#ents as
possi'le within the #iven "o!!unity. $he use of happiness in this thesis is in relation to the overall
"onse&uen"es of all the a#ents in the #iven "o!!unity. $he 'asi" ar#u!ent is that individual #ood is
!a)i!i%in# individual happiness. Dorality thou#h, involves the "o!!on #ood of all the a#ents in the
"o!!unity. $he "o!!on #ood, therefore, is !a)i!i%in# every ones happiness. = thin- the !ost pro!isin#
variation of utilitarianis! is rule utilitarianis! where e!phasis is pla"ed on the "onse&uen"es of every a#ent in
the "o!!unity adoptin# a parti"ular a"tion as a rule. =!pli"it within rule utilitarianis! is a stron# "onsisten"y
thesis whi"h pla"es ne"essary "onstraints on the 'asi" utilitarian ar#u!ent.
Last printed 9/0/2<<9 <@2<<2<< GD
2
243623569.doc DDW 2012
1
Util "ad
#iberty is a $oral side constraint utilitarian critics deem human%s lives as inviolable and mae true
individual rights impossible to attain
Ro%ert No!ic, 2rofessor of 2hilosophy at Harvard University, &' (3narchy, 4tate, and Utopia, 5opyri,ht 6 197", ,oo,le %oo0s#
!. .8R39 58N4-R3IN-4 3N: .8R39 ;8394 -his &uestion assu'es that a 'oral concern can function only as a
'oral ,oal, as an end state for so'e activities to achieve as their result. It 'ay, indeed, see' to %e a necessary truth that
<ri,ht<, <ou,ht<, <should<, and so on, are to %e e)plained in ter's of (hat is, or is intended to %e, productive of the ,reatest
,ood, (ith all ,oals %uilt into the ,ood." -hus it is often thou,ht that (hat is (ron, (ith utilitarianis' ((hich is of this
for'# is its too narro( conception of ,ood, Utilitarianis' doesn<t, it is said, properly ta0e ri,hts and their non=violation into
account> it instead leaves the' a derivative status, .any of the counter=e)a'ple cases to utilitarianis' fit under this
o%*ection, for e)a'ple, punishin, an innocent 'an to save a nei,h%ourhood fro' a ven,eful ra'pa,e. /ut a theory 'ay
include in a pri'ary (ay the non=violation of ri,hts, yet include it in the (ron, place and the (ron, 'anner. 1or suppose
so'e condition a%out 'ini'i?in, the total ((ei,hted# a'ount of violations of ri,hts is %uilt into the desira%le end state to
%e achieved. $e then (ould have so'ethin, li0e a <utilitarianis' of ri,hts<> violations of ri,hts (to %e 'ini'i?ed# 'erely
(ould replace the total happiness as the relevant end state in the utilitarian structure, (Note that (e do not hold the non=
violation of our ri,hts as our sole ,reatest ,ood or even ran0 it first le)ico,raphically to e)clude trade=offs, if there is so'e
desira%le society (e (ould choose to inha%it even thou,h in it so'e ri,hts of ours so'eti'es are violated, rather than 'ove
to a desert island (here (e could survive alone.# -his still (ould re&uire us to violate so'eone<s ri,hts (hen doin, so
'ini'i?es the total ((ei,hted# a'ount of the violation of ri,hts in the society, 1or e)a'ple, violatin, so'eone<s ri,hts
'i,ht deflect others fro' their intended action of ,ravely violatin, ri,hts, or 'i,ht re'ove their 'otive for doin, so, or
'i,ht divert their attention, and so on, 3 'o% ra'pa,in, throu,h a part of to(n 0illin, and %urnin, (ill violate the ri,hts
of those livin, there, -herefore, so'eone 'i,ht try to *ustify his punishin, another he 0no(s to %e innocent of a cri'e that
enra,ed a 'o%, on the ,rounds that punishin, this innocent person (ould help to avoid even ,reater violations of ri,hts %y
others, and so (ould lead to a 'ini'u' (ei,hted 4core for ri,hts violations in the society. In contrast to incorporatin,
ri,hts into the end state to %e achieved, one 'i,ht place the' as side constraints upon the actions to %e done@ don<t violate
constraints 5. -he ri,hts of others deter'ine the constraints upon your actions. (3 ,oal=directed vie( (ith constraints
added (ould %e@ a'on, those acts availa%le to you that don<t violate constraints 5, act so as to 'a)i'i?e ,oal ;. Here, the
ri,hts of others (ould constrain your ,oal=directed %ehaviour. I do not 'ean to i'ply that the correct 'oral vie( includes
'andatory ,oals that 'ust %e pursued, even (ithin the constraints.# -his vie( differs fro' one that tries to %uild the side
constraints 5 into the ,oal ;. -he side=constraint vie( for%ids you to violate these 'oral constraints in the pursuit of your
,oals> (hereas the vie( (hose o%*ective is to 'ini'i?e the violation of these ri,hts allo(s you to violate the ri,hts (the
constraints# in order to lessen their total violation in the society." -he clai' that the proponent of the ultra'ini'al state is
inconsistent, (e no( can see, assu'es that he is a <utilitarian of ri,hts<. It assu'es that his ,oal is, for e)a'ple, to 'ini'i?e
the (ei,hted a'ount of the violation of ri,hts in the society, and that he should pursue this ,oal even throu,h 'eans that
the'selves violate people<s ri,hts. Instead, he 'ay place the non=violation of ri,hts as a constraint upon action, rather than
(or in addition to# %uildin, it into the end state to %e reali?ed. -he position held %y this proponent of the ultra'ini'al state
(ill %e a consistent one if his conception of ri,hts holds that your %ein, forced to contri%ute to another<s (elfare violates
your ri,hts, (hereas so'eone else<s not providin, you (ith thin,s you need ,reatly, includin, thin,s essential to the
protection of your ri,hts, does not itself violate your ri,hts, even thou,h it avoids 'a0in, it 'ore difficult for so'eone else
to violate the'. (-hat conception (ill %e consistent provided it does not construe the 'onopoly ele'ent of the ultra'ini'al
state as itself a violation of ri,hts.# -hat it is a consistent position does not, of course, sho( that it is an accepta%le one. A.
$HB 4I:E 58N4-R3IN-4C Isn<t it irrational to accept a side constraint 5, rather than a vie( that directs 'ini'i?in, the
violations of 5C (-he latter vie( treats 5 as a condition rather than a constraint.# If non=violation of 5 is so i'portant,
shouldn<t that %e the ,oalC Ho( can a concern for the non=violation of 5 lead to the refusal to violate 5 even (hen this
(ould prevent other 'ore e)tensive violations of 5C $hat is the rationale for placin, the non=violation of ri,hts as a side
constraint upon action instead of includin, it solely as a ,oal of one<s actionsC 4ide constraints upon action reflect the
underlyin, Dantian principle that individuals are ends and not 'erely 'eans> they 'ay not %e sacrificed or used for the
achievin, of other ends (ithout their consent. Individuals are inviola%le. .ore should %e said to illu'inate this tal0 of ends
and 'eans. 5onsider a pri'e e)a'ple of a 'eans, a tool. -here is no side constraint on ho( (e 'ay use a tool, other than
the 'oral constraints on ho( (e 'ay use it upon others. -here are procedures to %e follo(ed to preserve it for future use
(<don<t leave it out in the rain<#, and there are 'ore and less efficient (ays of usin, it. /ut there is no li'it on (hat (e 'ay
do to it to %est achieve our ,oals. No( i'a,ine that there (as an overrida%le constraint 5 on so'e tool<s use. 1or e)a'ple,
Last printed 9/0/2<<9 <@2<<2<< GD
3
243623569.doc DDW 2012
1
the tool 'i,ht have %een lent to you only on the condition that 5 not %e violated unless the ,ain fro' doin, so (as a%ove a
certain specified a'ount, or unless it (as necessary to achieve a certain specified ,oal. Here the o%*ect is not co'pletely
your tool, for use accordin, to your (ish or (hi'. /ut it is a tool nevertheless, even (ith re,ard to the overrida%le
constraint. If (e add constraints on its use that 'ay not %e overridden, then the o%*ect 'ay not %e used as a tool in those
(ays. In those respects, it is not a tool at all. 5an one add enou,h constraints so that an o%*ect cannot %e used as a tool at
all, in any respectC 5an %ehaviour to(ard a person %e constrained so that he is not to %e used for any end e)cept as he
choosesC -his is an i'possi%ly strin,ent condition if it re&uires everyone (ho provides us (ith a ,ood to approve positively
of every use to (hich (e (ish to put it. Even the re&uire'ent that he 'erely should not o%*ect to any use (e plan (ould
seriously curtail %ilateral e)chan,e, not to 'ention se&uences of such e)chan,es. It is sufficient that the other party stands
to ,ain enou,h fro' the e)chan,e so that he is (illin, to ,o throu,h (ith it, even thou,h he o%*ects to one or 'ore of the
uses to (hich you shall put the ,ood. Under such conditions, the other party is not %ein, used solely as a 'eans, in that
respect. 3nother party, ho(ever, (ho (ould not choose to interact (ith you if he 0ne( of the uses to (hich you intend to
put his actions or ,ood, is %ein, used as a 'eans, even if he receives enou,h to choose (in his i,norance# to interact (ith
you. (<3ll alon,, you (ere *ust usin, 'e< can %e said %y so'eone (ho chose to interact only %ecause he (as i,norant of
another<s ,oals and of the uses to (hich he hi'self (ould %e put.# Is it 'orally incu'%ent upon so'eone to reveal his
intended uses of an interaction if he has ,ood reason to %elieve the other (ould refuse to interact if he 0ne(C Is he usin, the
other person, if he does not reveal thisC 3nd (hat of the cases (here the other does not choose to %e of use at allC In ,ettin,
pleasure fro' seein, an attractive person ,o %y, does one use the other solely as a 'eansCE :oes so'eone so use an o%*ect
of se)ual fantasiesC -hese and related &uestions raise very interestin, issues for 'oral philosophy> %ut not, I thin0, for
political philosophy, 2olitical philosophy is concerned only (ith certain (ays that persons 'ay not use others> pri'arily,
physically a,,ressin, a,ainst the', 3 specific side constraint upon action to(ard others e)presses the fact that others 'ay
not %e used in the specific (ays the side constraint e)cludes, 4ide constraints e)press the inviola%ility of others, in the (ays
they specify, -hese 'odes of inviola%ility are e)pressed %y the follo(in, in*unction@ <:on<t use people in specified (ays,<
3n end=state vie(, on the other hand. (ould e)press the vie( that people are ends and not 'erely 'eans (if it chooses to
e)press this vie( at all#, %y a different in*unction@ <.ini'i?e the use in specified (ays of persons as 'eans.< 1ollo(in, this
precept itself 'ay involve usin, so'eone as a 'eans in one of the (ays specified, Had Dant held this vie(, he (ould have
,iven the second for'ula of the cate,orical i'perative as, <4o act as to 'ini'i?e the use of hu'anity si'ply as a 'eans,<
rather than the one he actually used@ <3ct in such a (ay that you al(ays treat hu'anity, (hether in your o(n person or in
the person of any other, never si'ply as a 'eans, %ut al(ays at the sa'e ti'e as an end.F 4ide constraints e)press the
inviola%ility of other persons, /ut (hy 'ay not one violate persons for the ,reater social ,oodC Individually, (e each
so'eti'es choose to under,o so'e pain or sacrifice for a ,reater %enefit or to avoid a ,reater har'@ (e ,o to the dentist to
avoid (orse sufferin, later> (e do so'e unpleasant (or0 for its results> so'e persons diet to i'prove their health or loo0s>
so'e save 'oney to support the'selves (hen they are older. In each case, so'e cost is %orne for the sa0e of the ,reater
overall ,ood, $hy not, si'ilarly, hold that so'e persons have to %ear so'e costs that %enefit other persons 'ore, for the
sa0e of the overall social ,oodC /ut there is no social entity (ith a ,ood that under,oes so'e sacrifice for its o(n ,ood.
-here are only individual people, different individual people, (ith their o(n individual lives. Usin, one of these people for
the %enefit of others, uses hi' and %enefits the others. Nothin, 'ore. $hat happens is that so'ethin, is done to hi' for the
sa0e of others. -al0 of an overall social ,ood covers this up. (IntentionallyC# -o use a person in this (ay does not
sufficiently respect and ta0e account of the fact that he is a separate person,7 that his is the only life he has. He does not ,et
so'e over%alancin, ,ood fro' his sacrifice, and no one is entitled to force this upon hi'=least of all a state or ,overn'ent
that clai's his alle,iance (as other individuals do not# and that therefore scrupulously 'ust %e neutral %et(een its citi?ens.
Utilitarian calculations open space for unlimited instances of public intervention search for maximal
happiness results in morally monstrous policies where all of histories greatest atrocities can be (ustified
Richard )osner, Jud,e of the U.4. 5ourt of 3ppeals for the 4eventh 5ircuit and 9ecturer at University of 5hica,o 9a( 4chool, &*
(Utilitarianis', econo'ics, and le,al theory, -he Journal of 9e,al 4tudies, Gol.H, No. 1 (Jan., 1979##
3nother difficulty (ith utilitarianis' is the lac0 of a 'ethod for calculat= in, the effect of a decision or policy on the total
happiness of the relevant population."1 Even if attention is confined to the hu'an population, there is no relia%le techni&ue
for 'easurin, a chan,e in the level of satisfaction of one individual relative to a chan,e in the level of satisfaction of
another. 4o'e utilitarians have faith in the eventual discovery of a psycholo,ical 'etric that (ill ena%le happiness to %e
'easured and co'pared across per= sons (and ani'alsC#,"! %ut in the t(o centuries that have elapsed since /entha'
announced the felicific calculus no pro,ress to(ard the discovery of such a 'etric has %een 'ade. 2aretian (elfare
econo'ics is advanced %y so'e as the solution to the pro%le' of 'easurin, satisfactions. -he %asic 2aretian ar,u'ent is
that a voluntary 'ar0et transaction=e.,., 3 offers, and / accepts, IE for /<s %a, of oran,es, or 3 proposes 'arria,e, and
a,ain / accepts 3<s offer='ust 'a0e %oth parties %etter off, and so increase the level of (elfare or happiness in the society,
Last printed 9/0/2<<9 <@2<<2<< GD
4
243623569.doc DDW 2012
1
for if %oth 3 and / (ere not 'ade %etter off %y the transaction at least one of the' (ould refuse to consent to it. -his
approach does not, ho(ever, 'eet the utilitarian<s need for a dependa%le 'etric even if (e accept (as I a' inclined to do,
despite ar,u'ents, (hich I cannot hope to address here, that advertisin, or other features of a 'ar0et econo'y lead people
to %uy thin,s they don<t really (ant# that a 'ar0et transaction in= creases the happiness of the parties over (hat it (as
i''ediately %efore the transaction too0 place. -he transaction (or, 'ore plausi%ly, a series of li0e transactions# 'ay affect
nonparties@ %y increasin, the de'and for oran,es it 'ay cause the price of oran,es to rise to other consu'ers as (ell, and
the hi,her price 'ay 'a0e those other consu'ers &uite 'isera%le. .oreover, the analysis %e,s t(o critical &uestions@
(hether the ,oods e)chan,ed (ere initially distri%uted so as to 'a)i'i?e happiness ((ere the people (ith 'oney those
(ho derive the 'ost happiness fro' the thin,s 'oney can %uyC# and (hether a syste' of free 'ar0ets creates 'ore
happiness than alternative syste's of resource allocation do or could. -he 2aretian criterion could of course %e defined in
such a (ay that no transaction (as dee'ed 2areto opti'al unless it raised the level of happiness in the society. 2erhaps this
definition is i'plicit in the usual for'ulation of the criterion@ a transaction is 2areto opti'al if it 'a0es at least one person
%etter off and no one (orse off. /ut ri,orously applied, this test is un(or0= a%le %ecause the total effects of a transaction on
hu'an happiness, content= 'ent, or satisfaction are rarely ascertaina%le. I conclude that 2aretian analy= sis does not solve
the utilitarians< pro%le' of 'easurin, happiness. :ifficulty in derivin, specific policies or ,uidelines fro' ethical pre'ises
is not, of course, uni&ue to utilitarianis'> it is characteristic of ethical discus= sion ,enerally. Ra(ls<s (or0, as (e shall see,
stri0in,ly illustrates this point. 3nd a'on, conte'porary Dantian le,al ri,hts theorists, one has only to co'pare 1ried and
Epstein, (ho, startin, fro' see'in,ly identical pre'ises re,ardin, hu'an respect and autono'y, derive &uite different
policy i'pli= cations."A If :(or0in is a J,enuineJ Dantian, and not si'ply a utilitarian of the e,alitarian school,"" the
point is 'ade even 'ore dra'atically. Ho(= ever, the fact that utilitarianism is no more indefinite than competing theo+
ries of moral obligation may not reconcile one to utilitarianism, especially one who happens to favor limited
government. 4uppose, for e)a'ple, that /entha' and 'any other utilitarians are ri,ht that lac0in, any real 0no(l= ed,e of
the responsiveness of different individuals< happiness to inco'e (e should assu'e that every one is pretty 'uch ali0e in
that respect. -hen (e need only 'a0e one additional, and as it happens plausi%le, assu'ption= that of the di'inishin,
'ar,inal utility of 'oney inco'e=to o%tain a utilitarian %asis for a ,oal of see0in, to e&uali?e inco'es. 1or, on these
assu'ptions, it is easily sho(n that an e&ual distri%ution of inco'e and (ealth (ill produce 'ore happiness than any other
distri%ution,"E unless the costs of achievin, and 'aintainin, such a distri%ution e&ual or e)ceed the %enefits in ,reater
happiness. -he &ualification is of course critical, %ut it places the %urden of proof on the opponent of inco'e e&uali?ation in
an area (here proof is notoriously difficult to co'e %y. The example of income e,uality illustrates a broader point- .f
the imprac+ ticality of the felicific calculus is taen to (ustify the utilitarian/s use of guesswor, the possibilities for
plausible public intervention become vir+ tually unlimited. 3s a trivial e)a'ple, fro' the o%servation that ani'als are
capa%le of sufferin,, it is %ut a fe( steps to advocatin, the prohi%ition of sport fishin,."F -he pro%le' of indefiniteness
%lends insensi%ly into a related o%*ection to utilitarian thou,ht@ (hat one 'i,ht ter' the perils of instru'entalis'. Ri,hts in
a utilitarian syste' are strictly instru'ental ,oods. -he only final ,ood is the happiness of the ,roup as a (hole. If it is
'a)i'i?ed %y allo(in, people to o(n property and 'arry as they choose and chan,e *o%s and so on, then ri,hts to these
thin,s (ill %e ,iven to the', %ut if happiness could %e increased %y treatin, people 'ore li0e sheep, then ri,hts are out the
(indo(. 2eople do not see' to %e happier in totalitarian than in de'ocratic states, %ut if they (ere, the consistent utilitarian
(ould have to support to= talitarianis'. Utilitarianis' thus see's to %ase ri,hts of ,reat i'portance on no fir'er ,round
than an e'pirical hunch that they pro'ote Jhappiness.J -hat hunch cannot %e verified %y any tools (e have or are li0ely to
ac&uire=thou,h so'e people (ill find one %it of evidence or another (e.,., the /erlin $all# persuasive in %uttressin, it.
0ven within the general framewor of the liberal state, utilitarians who are not shy about maing bold empirical
guesses concerning the distribution of happiness can produce rather monstrous policy recommendations. 3n e)a'ple
is /entha'<s pro= posal for eli'inatin, %e,,in, %y enslavin, %e,,ars."7 J.oral 'onstrousnessJ is in fact a 'a*or pro%le'
of utilitarianis'. -(o types of 'onstrousness 'ay %e distin,uished. 8ne ste's fro' the utilita= rian<s refusal to 'a0e 'oral
distinctions a'on, types of pleasure. 4uppose that 3 spends his leisure ti'e pullin, (in,s off flies, (hile / spends his
feedin, pi,eons, and that %ecause 3 has a ,reater capacity for pleasure he derives 'ore happiness fro' his leisure ti'e than
/ does fro' his. 2uttin, aside the unhappiness of the fly=(hich, if (e could 'easure happiness, (ould pro%a%ly %e found
trivial=the consistent utilitarian (ould have to *ud,e 3 a %etter 'an than /, %ecause 3<s activity adds 'ore to the su' of
happiness than /<s. -he other type of 'oral 'onstrousness associated (ith utilitarianis' arises fro' the utilitarian<s
readiness to sacrifice the innocent individual on the altar of social need. 3lan :ona,an ,ives the follo(in, e)a'ple@ it
'i,ht (ell %e the case that 'ore ,ood and less evil (ould result fro' your painlessly and undetectedly 'urderin, your
'alicious, old and unhappy ,randfather than fro' your for%earin, to do so@ he (ould %e freed fro' his (retched e)istence>
his children (ould %e re*oiced %y their inheritances and (ould no lon,er suffer fro' his 'ischief> and you 'i,ht anticipate
the re(ard pro'ised to those (ho do ,ood in secret. No%ody seriously dou%ts that a position (ith such a conse&uence is
'on= strous."H :ona,an is correct, I %elieve, that a consistent utilitarian (ould have to rec0on the 'urderer a ,ood 'an.
-he utilitarian could, of course, point out that a practice of 'urderin, o%no)ious ,randfathers (ould pro%a%ly reduce
Last printed 9/0/2<<9 <@2<<2<< GD
5
243623569.doc DDW 2012
1
happiness. Dno(led,e of the practice (ould 'a0e ,randfathers very un= happy, yet in the lon, run pro%a%ly not %enefit
heirs %ecause the practice (ould deter people fro' accu'ulatin, estates. /ut any utilitarian o%*ections to creatin, an
e)ception to the la( of 'urder for 0illers of o%no)ious ,rand= fathers have no force at the level of personal 'orality once it
is stipulated that the 'urder (ill ,o undetected. Bet to call the 'urderer in :ona,an<s e)a'ple a J,ood 'anJ does
unaccepta%le violence to conventional 'oral notions. .onstrousness is a less serious pro%le' of utilitarianis' at the level
of social than of personal choice. It is one thin, to pic0 an innocent person at rando' and 0ill hi' to achieve so'e social
end and another to esta%lish an institutional structure=cri'inal punish'ent, for e)a'ple=(hich 'a0es it inevita%le that
so'e innocent people (ill suffer. No punish'ent syste' could %e devised that reduced the pro%a%ility of erroneous
conviction to ?ero. Bet even at the level of social choice, utilitarianis' can lead occasion= ally to 'onstrous results.
4uppose there (ere a ,roup of people (ho (ere at once so fe( relative to the rest of the society, so 'isera%le, and so hated
that their e)ter'ination (ould increase the total happiness of the society. -he consistent utilitarian (ould find it hard to
denounce e)ter'ination in these circu'stances althou,h he (ould %e entitled to note the an)iety costs that 'i,ht %e
i'posed on people (ho feared they (ould %e e)ter'inated ne)t. 3s another e)a'ple, the initial and relatively 'ild anti=
4e'itic 'easures ta0en %y Hitler<s ,overn'ent a,ainst ;er'an Je(s conceiva%ly increased the total happiness of the
;er'an (and (orldC# population even thou,h so'e non= Je(s 'ay have feared a precedent for other identifia%le 'inority
,roups to (hich they %elon,ed. 5onceiva%ly, these initial anti=4e'itic 'easures (ere 'orally desira%le fro' a utilitarian
standpoint."9 If 'onstrousness is a peril of utilitarianis', 'oral s&uea'ishness, or fanaticis', is a peril of Dantian
theorists. /ernard $illia's poses the case of JJi',J the ,uest of an officer in a %ac0(ard country (ho is a%out to have a
,roup of political prisoners shot.EK -he officer tells Ji' that if Ji' (ill shoot one of the prisoners, he (ill release the
others. -he e)tre'e Dantian (ould say that Ji' has no o%li,ation to shoot a prisoner %ecause there is a crucial difference
%et(een doin, evil and failin, to prevent evil. -his is $illia's<s position. I re,ard the asserted distinction as precious in the
e)a'ple. If Ji' declines the officer<s invitation, all the prisoners (ill die> if he accepts it, all %ut one (ill %e saved. -here is
no trade=off. No one (ill %e %etter off if Ji' declines the invitation> all %ut one (ill %e (orse off.
don%t evaluate the neg%s exaggerated claims of nuclear annihilation and refrain from crisis mentality-
1N2 plan is better than the neg3 it solves for nuclear war in the long term by addressing the root cause,
they only delay nuclear war
$artin *, 2h: in theoretical physics, associate professor in 4cience, -echnolo,y and 4ociety at the University of $ollon,on,, !KK9
(/rian, 5li'ate crisisC -he politics of e'er,ency fra'in, 2u%lished in Econo'ic and 2olitical $ee0ly, Gol. "", No. AF, E
4epte'%er !KK9, pp. EA=FK.#
1irstly, the anti=nuclear=(eapons 'ove'ents e)panded dra'atically yet collapsed *ust a fe( years later, even thou,h the
underlyin, pro%le' = the ris0 of 'a*or catastrophe fro' nuclear (ar = re'ained 'uch the sa'e. -his su,,ests that
'ove'ents should ai' to %eco'e sustaina%le, %uildin, structures or approaches that can 'aintain popular involve'ent
over the lon, ter'. 4econdly, crisis fra'in, (as insufficient to create the hu,e 'o%ilisation necessary to %rin, a%out
funda'ental chan,e in the nuclear syste'. Indeed, ca'pai,ners usin, thin0in, li0e that of Jonathan 4chell and 5arl 4a,an,
(ho ar,ued that nuclear (ar (as the ulti'ate catastrophe, failed to i'part their sense of crisis to ,overn'ent decision=
'a0ers. -hirdly, crisis fra'in, appeared to put an e'phasis on short=ter' solutions i'ple'ented %y ,overn'ents = an
orientation to refor'is' (Ro%erts 1979#. -his sort of fra'in, ne,lected the develop'ent of lon,=ter' activis' to %rin,
a%out chan,es in the structure of state syste' that underlies the nuclear threat (/arnet 197!> Dovel 19HA> .artin 19H"#.
Ever since the develop'ent of nuclear (eapons, opponents have ar,ued that they are so horri%le that they should never %e
used. Bet nu'erous ,overn'ents have developed and deployed the', their leaders see'in,ly unpertur%ed %y ar,u'ents
%ased on the co''on ,ood. 3nti=nuclear 'ove'ents have co'e and ,one and nuclear ar'a'ents have re'ained, even
thou,h the alle,ed *ustification for havin, the' = the threat fro' the ene'y = appeared to disappear (ith the end of the cold
(ar. -he persistence of nuclear ar'a'ents su,,ests that the drivin, forces %ehind the' are deeper than the standard
*ustification offered %y ,overn'ents@ deterrence. 3r,ua%ly, on,oin, co''it'ents to nuclear (eapons = and to 'ilitary
stren,th 'ore ,enerally = are lin0ed to the 'aintenance of state po(er, the lin0 %et(een state po(er and corporate interests
(includin, via 'ilitary=industrial co'ple)es#, 'ilitary syste's, and science and technolo,y ,eared to 'ilitary priorities.
$hatever the precise e)planation, the point here is that ,ettin, rid of nuclear (eapons is not *ust a 'atter of convincin, a
fe( people at the top that the (orld (ould %e %etter off (ithout the' = that has %een atte'pted for decades (ithout 'uch
success.Nuclear (eapons are part of an institutionalised (ar syste'. -hat 'eans that ,ettin, rid of the' has to %e a lon,=
ter' process of social chan,e, includin, challen,es to the syste's in (hich the nuclear 'entality thrives, and developin,
alternatives. .ovin, for(ard on this lon,=ter' process re&uires vision, co''it'ent and strate,ic thin0in,. 3lar'in,
people %y the spectre of nuclear devastation and the possi%ility of hu'an e)tinction 'i,ht (or0 for short=ter' ,oals %ut has
had li'ited success in helpin, lon,=ter' efforts to transfor' the (ar syste'. -here is another disadvanta,e of seein,
Last printed 9/0/2<<9 <@2<<2<< GD
6
243623569.doc DDW 2012
1
nuclear (ar as an all=or=nothin, stru,,le, as either preventin, nuclear (ar or sufferin, the ulti'ate catastrophe. It 'eans
peace activists are not prepared for the after'ath of an actual nuclear (ar (.artin 19H!c#. It is possi%le that a nuclear
e)chan,e could %e li'ited, for e)a'ple a fe( %o'%s e)ploded in a hot spot such as the .iddle East or 4outh 3sia, an
attac0 %y terrorists (ho have ac&uired (eapons, or an accidental launch of nuclear 'issiles. -he result could %e 'assive
loss of life = fro' tens of thousands of people to a fe( 'illion, for e)a'ple = %ut still far fro' puttin, hu'an survival at
ris0, indeed less than so'e previous (ars. 3 li'ited nuclear e)chan,e is a possi%ility, %ut peace activists are co'pletely
unprepared %ecause so 'uch ca'pai,nin, has used crisis fra'in, (ith the 'essa,e J(e<d %etter stop nuclear (eapons or
it<s all over.J -his (ould %e li0e fire %ri,ades puttin, all their ener,y into (arnin, people a%out the conse&uences of fires
%ut not preparin, to deal (ith an actual one. Nuclear (ar creates 'uch %i,,er fires than any %ri,ade has had to deal (ith,
%ut the principle is the sa'e. -he after'ath of an actual nuclear (ar holds several possi%ilities. 8ne is ,overn'ent crac0=
do(ns on all for's of dissent, to 'o%ilise the population a,ainst the ene'y, a political repression that (ould 'a0e the post=
9L11 J(ar on terrorJ see' 'ild %y co'parison. 3 parallel process (ould %e popular revulsion a,ainst nuclear (eapons,
especially a,ainst ,overn'ents %elieved to have authorised the'. -his (ould %e an opportunity to 'a0e dra'atic ,ains for
peace. /ut (ithout preparation %y anti=nuclear ca'pai,ners, there is a ,reater ris0 that ,overn'ents (ould respond %y
,earin, up for an even 'ore devastatin, nuclear future.
The neg%s mentality to sacrifice anything and everything to avoid nuclear war causes ontological
damnation that outweighs nuclear war the aff helps us survive nuclear war 1N2 avoid ontological
damnation, the impact is hell on earth
4immerman *', (2rofessor of 2hilosophy at -ulane#, 199" (.ichael, 5ontestin, the EarthMs 1uture, p. 1K"#.
Heide,,er asserted that hu'an self=assertion , co'%ined (ith the eclipse of %ein,, threatens the relation %et(een %ein, and
hu'an :asein.EA 9oss of this relation (ould %e even 'ore dan,erous than a nuclear (ar that 'i,ht J%rin, a%out the
co'plete annihilation of hu'anity and the destruction of the earth.JE"-his controversial clai' is co'para%le to the
5hristian teachin, that it is %etter to forfeit the (orld than to lose one<s soul %y losin, one<s relation to ;od. Heide,,er
apparently thou,ht alon, these lines@ it is possi%le that after a nuclear (ar, life 'i,ht once a,ain e'er,e, %ut it is far less
li0ely that there (ill ever a,ain occur an ontolo,ical clearin, throu,h (hich such life could 'anifest itself. 1urther, since
'odernity<s one=di'ensional disclosure of entities virtually denies the' any J%ein,J at all, the loss of hu'anity <s openness
for %ein, is already occurrin,.EE.odernity<s %ac0,round 'ood is horror in the face of nihilis', (hich is consistent (ith the
ai' of providin, 'aterial JhappinessJ for everyone %y reducin, nature to pure ener,y.EF-he unleashin, of vast &uantities
of ener,y in nuclear (ar (ould %e e&uivalent to 'odernity<s slo(='otion destruction of nature@ un%ounded destruction
(ould e&ual li'itless consu'ption. If hu'anity avoided nuclear (ar only to survive as contented clever ani'als,
Heide,,er %elieved (e (ould e)ist in a state of ontolo,ical da'nation@ hell on earth, 'as&ueradin, as 'aterial paradise.
:eep ecolo,ists 'i,ht a,ree that a (orld of 'aterial hu'an co'fort purchased at the price of everythin, (ild (ould not %e
a (orld (orth livin, in, for in 0illin, (ild nature, people (ould %e as ,ood as dead. /ut 'ost of the' could not a,ree that
the loss of hu'anity<s relation to %ein, (ould %e (orse than nuclear o'nicide, for it is (ron, to suppose that the lives of
'illions of e)tinct and un0no(n species are so'eho( lessened %ecause they (ere never JdisclosedJ %y hu'anity.
Last printed 9/0/2<<9 <@2<<2<< GD
*