What Human Rights?

[The Barefoot Bum]

@Barefoot, I'm a big fan of utilitarianism myself.   Though I'd caution against claiming that the statement "people will want to be happy" doesn't flirt with the notion of objective moral principles.  

I meant to say people will want to be happy (if I did say it, that's not what I meant): I mean that observably, people do in fact want to be happy; it's seems, however, that some people have difficulty doing so, and others find happiness in the must unusual things. The same is true of suffering

So, if you're really, really into hurting things, a utilitarian system might say -go find some ants- rather than moralize endlessly over their personal tastes.

 

I think we have to remember that Bentham and Mill's original utilitarianism was definitely a metaphysically normative system: it contains the principle that one should seek the greatest good for the greatest number. I think this metaphysical norm contradicts the underlying spirit of their philosophy, and I think we can dispense with it. 

Descriptively, every person actually does what he or she wants to do. Emotionally, we evolved to be social, so empathy logically precedes the system: we seek the greatest good for the greatest number not because we ought to, but because that's how our brains generally work. Normally, this is how things work. I do nice things for strangers not because I ought to, but because I like it: it gives me pleasure, both immediately and rationally: I know I'm happier in a generally cooperative society.

But as is the case with any other normative system, a person with very low empathy will not find the logical arguments at all compelling. People with high empathy have to make the (slightly) difficult choice of deciding between harming a perpetrator of harm to others, by denying him this pleasure, or allowing him to hurt others; both offend our empathy, and we have to choose. Then, by extension, a rational person without empathy has to decide between fulfilling his primary desires at the risk of retaliation (from his own perspective) of others.

Juxtaposed against a system which makes statements such as "hurting people is just wrong, period" -for whatever reason-, it's easy to see why people prefer the simpler, less nuanced system (even if I can't agree with them).  Utilitarianism acknowledges that human relationships and human beings are varied and complicated, and perhaps this isn't a sufficient level of reduction to satisfy those who yearn for a life of black and white moral statements.  Judging by the prevalence of religious moralities in this world I'd say that most people prefer the reductive, rather than the acknowledging.  The trick, I suppose, would be to convince them that utilitarianism can also provide more (or as much) of "whatever" for -them- than their current systems, while allowing more of "whatever" for others than their current system.  Ala, it costs you nothing and they gain much.

I'm not sure that this is strictly true, that people prefer (at a basic level) simpler, less nuanced systems. A lot of intellectual and ideological production since the relatively recent abandonment of hunter-gatherer economics has gone into convincing people that these "simpler" systems -- which just so happen to (among other things) justify the privilege of the ruling class du jour, what a coincidence -- are actually true, and the penalties for violating them are severe. If people wanted simpler systems just for the sake of simplicity, there would be no need of hell (or prisons).

Applying utilitarianism to a specific example, say, people charged with capital offenses - we might say.....if you stop executing them, you will still be able to incarcerate them, you will still be able to prevent them from repeating their crimes, and it will cost you less than it does to execute them - meanwhile, the world would be a place in which fewer people are executed in error (which could just as easily be you as it was them).  So, costs "you" nothing, they gain much, and accomplishes the task at hand - which is shielding society from the predations of murderous douchebags in hoodies -or- judges robes....lol.

No argument there!