Utilitarians believe that people should work to maximize total happiness across the population. They believe that the only reason to do something or not to do something is because it will make people happier or unhappier respectively. Thus, whether something is good or bad depends to some extent on people’s preferences — whether it makes them happy or sad.
But this might leads to some odd conclusions in the case of what might be called “perverse preferences”. For example, some members of the Bush Administration say they get very sad when they see others eat ice cream in public. Yet many people like to eat ice cream in public. Should we stop them from doing so just because it makes others sad? Moreover, should they decide to stop doing so if they’re utilitarians?
Or, to take a more realistic example, many people like having sex with other people of the same gender, while others insist that such sex makes them sad. Should a utilitarian gay person remain quiet about how they’re having gay sex because speaking up will upset homophobes?
A naive utilitarian might say yes, while intuition says the right answer is no. I think the actual right answer is no, and here’s the reason:
Distaste for gay sex is a perverse preference, in that it’s a preference about other people’s behavior that doesn’t directly affect you. And, empirically, we find that such preferences don’t usually withstand frequent exposure to the behavior itself.
In other words, the more public people are about the gay sex they’re having, the less hearing about gay sex tends to make people feel bad. Thus, being public about the gay sex you’re having is the optimal behavior because it:
- makes you feel good,
- makes people who don’t like gay sex less afraid of it, which leads to
- letting other people be public about their gay sex, making them feel good
That is, being public about the behavior helps transition from a society with lots of closeted gays and lots of homophobes to a society with lots of proud gays and few homophobes. There’s more overall happiness in the second society so it’s right to do things that bring us closer to it.
posted 2008-08-11T18:13:48 #
My understanding of Utilitarianism is that looks at the sum of all people affected by an action - not just small - or even influential - groups.
So according to Utilitarianism, if eating icecream negatively affected more people than not, then maybe we should reconsider eating icecream.
I think that also explains why laws vary by peoples. There are cases which, for historical or cultural reasons, more people of a population consider a specific act as affecting them negatively. So, to impose a historical or cultural justification for an act by a larger population onto a smaller - under the guise of the “greater good”, would be, i think, unjust.
What makes sense to me is to have smaller governing units which permit for distinct populations to make their own decisions and assert their cultural beliefs (obviously, preserving basic human rights).
Utilitarianism can sometimes be a bit too universalistic and often forgets the most human of all social units: the family - and what stems from family, like ethnicity, culture, nation etc.
Now, you can apply the same insights of John Stuart Mill to smaller social groups and allow for a greater diversity of people and allowing for even more people to be happy.
posted by Eddie A. Tejeda
on 2008-08-11T20:59:01 #
Come to think of it, Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon would be a great place for an orgy.
posted by sampablokuper
on 2008-08-12T02:56:49 #
The dubious logic is right here: “And, empirically, we find that such preferences don’t usually withstand frequent exposure to the behavior itself.”
It’s not at all clear this is true in the simple way you use it. It’s certainly true in SOME cases (interracial marriage). But also untrue in other cases (cannibalism). And which case will be which is also unclear.
Once you’ve introduced justification by a conjectured future benefit, all sorts of mischief can be justified. This is basically the “save your souls / you’ll thank me one day for this” type of reasoning.
So that sort of reasoning could be applied to any taboo topic.
[Needless to say, this is NOT meant to condone homophobia - just pointing out the reasoning given above doesn’t work]
posted by Seth Finkelstein
on 2008-08-12T04:46:18 #
Utilitarianism is great because losing an argument usually means making your principles more general, as opposed to actually admitting you were wrong or anything like that.
posted by John
on 2008-08-18T04:51:22 #
Alternatively, even if preferences remain exactly the same over time, the utility that a gay person might lose from having to always be circumspect about his/her behavior is probably greater than the utility that a homophobic person loses on hearing about some instance of disapproved behavior.
Then again, if homosexuals only compose a small percentage (Posner says it’s 2-3% for men, 1% for women — http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/08/the_economics_o_8.html) of the population, that might not be the case.
So much the worse for utilitarianism. I think the smarter move is to adopt a version of consequentialism with a more expansive notion of The Good.
posted by Mikey
on 2008-08-25T08:03:06 #
Letters to the editor are printed at the discretion of the proprietor. They may be edited for length and content.
(You can also send your letters by email. If you choose to do so, please note if you're willing to make your letter available for publication.)
My understanding of Utilitarianism is that looks at the sum of all people affected by an action - not just small - or even influential - groups.
So according to Utilitarianism, if eating icecream negatively affected more people than not, then maybe we should reconsider eating icecream.
I think that also explains why laws vary by peoples. There are cases which, for historical or cultural reasons, more people of a population consider a specific act as affecting them negatively. So, to impose a historical or cultural justification for an act by a larger population onto a smaller - under the guise of the “greater good”, would be, i think, unjust.
What makes sense to me is to have smaller governing units which permit for distinct populations to make their own decisions and assert their cultural beliefs (obviously, preserving basic human rights).
Utilitarianism can sometimes be a bit too universalistic and often forgets the most human of all social units: the family - and what stems from family, like ethnicity, culture, nation etc.
Now, you can apply the same insights of John Stuart Mill to smaller social groups and allow for a greater diversity of people and allowing for even more people to be happy.
posted by Eddie A. Tejeda on 2008-08-11T20:59:01 #
Come to think of it, Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon would be a great place for an orgy.
posted by sampablokuper on 2008-08-12T02:56:49 #
The dubious logic is right here: “And, empirically, we find that such preferences don’t usually withstand frequent exposure to the behavior itself.”
It’s not at all clear this is true in the simple way you use it. It’s certainly true in SOME cases (interracial marriage). But also untrue in other cases (cannibalism). And which case will be which is also unclear.
Once you’ve introduced justification by a conjectured future benefit, all sorts of mischief can be justified. This is basically the “save your souls / you’ll thank me one day for this” type of reasoning.
So that sort of reasoning could be applied to any taboo topic.
[Needless to say, this is NOT meant to condone homophobia - just pointing out the reasoning given above doesn’t work]
posted by Seth Finkelstein on 2008-08-12T04:46:18 #
Utilitarianism is great because losing an argument usually means making your principles more general, as opposed to actually admitting you were wrong or anything like that.
posted by John on 2008-08-18T04:51:22 #
Alternatively, even if preferences remain exactly the same over time, the utility that a gay person might lose from having to always be circumspect about his/her behavior is probably greater than the utility that a homophobic person loses on hearing about some instance of disapproved behavior.
Then again, if homosexuals only compose a small percentage (Posner says it’s 2-3% for men, 1% for women — http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/08/the_economics_o_8.html) of the population, that might not be the case.
So much the worse for utilitarianism. I think the smarter move is to adopt a version of consequentialism with a more expansive notion of The Good.
posted by Mikey on 2008-08-25T08:03:06 #
Letters to the editor are printed at the discretion of the proprietor. They may be edited for length and content.
Add yours
(You can also send your letters by email. If you choose to do so, please note if you're willing to make your letter available for publication.)