Law & Society Blog

Non-relativistic moral theory oscillates between the two great intuitions of consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism is intellectually rigorous, autitable, and eminently practical. The problem is that it leads to horrendous results, where the few are sacrificed for the good of the many. As Bentham famously said, “everyone is to count for one and no one for more than one.” Deontological theories, or rights-based approaches, focus on the individual. In Nozik’s words:

There are only individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. What happens is that something is done to him for the sake of others. Talk of an overall social good covers this up. (Intentionally?) (Anarchy, State, Utopia)

The blueprints for modern deontological theories were outlined by Kant and Hegel. Practical reason (starting from “I”) or recognition (starting from “you”) demand that we attribute individuals with a hard nucleus of rights - rights sufficiently hardened to resist the pull of consequentialist considerations that can only be restricted and in some instances overridden by conflicting rights. That is all well and good and leaves most thoughtful people torn between these two intuitions, hoping that in the normal course of events consequentialism and rights-based theories won’t clash. Within that “normal” realm of peaceful coexistence, consequentialism has distinct advantages over rights-based moral theories, because its decision procedures are rational, require only a minimal set of anthropological assumptions, and yield sufficiently concrete results to be useful in practice, e.g., in designing social policy. Last but not least, consequentialism is significantly more compatible with the market and with economic theory than its deontological competitors. Given the significance of trade, exchange, and the market as a decentralized ordering principle of human cooperation and life, that compatibility underwrites much of the plausibility of consequentialism.

But what if the normal conditions don’t obtain? What if the normal conditions aren’t even normal at all but rather the exception to the norm? What if there are pervasive patterns of racial, social, and gender discrimination that undermine the consequential calculus already at an epistemological level? What if liberal democracies start torturing people, not to defuse the proverbial ticking bomb but to gather intelligence of questionable probative value?

Jonathan Wolff (University College London) doesn’t propose a solution to the latter problem. Instead, in Making the World Safe for Utilitarianism, he proposes a set of criteria to help us distinguish what he terms “fortunate circumstances” (my “normal conditions”) from “unfortunate circumstances.” Under fortunate circumstances, consequentialism works. Under unfortunate circumstances, it may lead to horrendous outcomes.

[Maximizing consequentialism is] very powerful but also very dangerous. Like a powerful but destructive technology, the task is understanding when to use it and when not to.

Here then are the four conditions of fortunate circumstances:

1. There need to be regular opportunities of a similar nature. (Call this the assumption of “many chances”.)
2. No single loss (or likely repeated series of losses) creates a type of level of harm for any individual from which recovery is very difficult or impossible. (The assumption of “recoverable loss”.)
3. There is no reason to doubt that the probabilities run true. (The assumption of “true odds”.)
4. All relevant gains and losses can be quantified and compared to each other. (The assumption of “weak commensurability”.)

In the absence of a unifying moral theory, knowing the conditions under which a partial theory applies is absolutely critical. Wolff’s list of criteria significantly advances the demarcation and classification effort. Highly recommended.

Technorati Tags: philosophy, utilitarianism, consequentialism, Wolff

License

This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 License.