On the utilitarianism
In yesterday’s class, I was lecturing on four approaches in dealing with distributive justice of science and technology policy, namely: utilitarian, libertarian, (John) Rawl’s contractarian, and communitarian. Of course I talked more about the dominant, if implicit, distributional framework of ST policy, which is utilitarian one, with the reading from Cozzens. We know that in the utilitarian view, a distributional system is justified as long as it increases total happiness for the group, not among the individuals. Utilitarianists argue that what they advocate contributes to economic growth and the solution of major societal problems, and then let other areas of policy (social one) worry about whether the benefits are distributed equally or not, or whether everybody get benefit or not — they ‘grow the pie’ someone else cuts it.
In the class, I gave a very blunt example, if I threw 100 slices of pizza to everybody, around 25 students, total happiness of class is positive. The class is happy, rather than not having pizza at all, or if just 10 slices pizza. Then, if I were a utilitarian, if there were some who got 7 slices and others got only 1 or 2, that’s not my problem. At least they got pizza, right?
Yeah yeah…. but, let me talk straight here…. that “at least they got pizza” attitude is a problem, a real problem.
The problem is what’s at the heart of utilitarian view is wealth creation, not equalities. There is no explicit mechanism to make sure that both the wealthy and the poor share the benefits. And the increasing market orientation makes it more likely that the affluence will benefit more than the poor.
On a more pragmatic note, utilitarianists with their implicit distributional ethic do share view with many, or even most, who believe that economic growth is always good and bring benefits from everyone, through “trickle down”. While unequal, nevertheless everybody get benefits. Indeed, economic growth on national level does almost always help the poor.
The problem of course it keeps sanctioning society with growing inequalities. And in the end, inequalities not only hurt the poor, but also hurt the wealthy ones, hurt the system (e.g. increased crime rate hurts the whole neighborhood). Utilitarian works to a certain degree and certainly works to boost economic growth, but it opens up a big hole for problems. And certainly, without enforcing regulations the system would run wild. Pure utilitarianism + deregulation = a big mess. There’s no mechanism to correct the imbalance without regulation.
I am not sure how it started, but then in the discussion, my students started to link the lecture to the crisis in the United States and the bailout plan.
I couldn’t help but pointing out that not only current crisis is an example on how utilitarian approach doesn’t work, but also it’s THE example of bad combination, deregulated utilitarian! I was rambling with some jokes, but I was clear in making my point.
Later that evening, I just realized that what I was talking was related with what Biden vs Palin was talking about when they talked about taxes and economy(ic) crisis. Not surprising, after the VP debate, I got an email from my student telling me that what was heard in the class (from me) helped this student to frame the issue (and certainly to know which one had a better solution).
I don’t do campaign in the class. I don’t instill my political stance there. But yes, I do clearly point out which one is rational, which one is not, which one can solve and which one cannot. And in this case, there’s no no to deregulated utilitarian.
9 Comments so far
Leave a comment
If I had the courage I would send you a great, big kiss for this post.
Because.
Because it’s an example how to tell complicated phenomenon extremely articulate, clear and understandable.
(And, as you may guess, because - though you refrain from politics in classes - what you explain is totally compatible with my political convictions.)
mer: great that yours is compatible with mine. perhaps we should run a country together…. which country, i wonder… haha….
By colson on 10.03.08 11:38 pm
Palin -> “redistribution of wealth principle”
Biden -> Fairness - The middle class is the economic engine.
Paulson -> Bailout - who will become asset managers? better to take than to give?
Good reference on Bill Moyer’s Bailout Blues
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2008/10/bailout_blues.html
mer: what Palin/McCain called “redistribution of wealth principle” is definitely a pure utilitarian centering at the economic growth, so it’ll still sanction society with increasing inequalities. Biden/Obama is more into redistribution of tax burden, which is a twist of inclusive utilitarian (Rawl’s), which is much better and fairer than a utilitarian, and good enough for now. though in essence, it a long term it should go more communitarian.
By neon on 10.04.08 10:25 am
Oooh … the pizza example really helped my small brain to understand. Something that doesn’t look dangerous (kan semuanya juga dapet toh, biarpun ngga rata) actually turns into a bad domino effect!
mer: you got it right…. economists mostly look at the economic growth, forgetting that even there’s growth, it doesn’t mean everybody is well off… in fact, it’s possible that some individuals never really get anything…
By santi on 10.05.08 6:43 am
Teh, i thought the problem with inequality means the socialists haven’t work well. Because the utilitarians have produce wealth for the group. then as said in the beginning, let the socialist do the share.
pardon for my basic understanding on social science issue.
mer: i get a little confused with your comment. what you mean with ’socialists’ here? who? socialism works in a society that advocates socialism…. socialism branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. which one of socialism? my posting is not so much about social science, it’s also about economic and math.
my point was that when you want to eradicate/avoid increasing inequalities, your starting point should be equality — not something else. you should start from “everybody get benefits” rather than collective growth. if you want everybody (25 people) in the room to have 4 slices of pizza each, then that should be at the heart of formula/framework, not focusing on the sum (100 slices). it’s a totally different approach.
By M on 10.06.08 3:53 pm
How to distribute 700 billion bail-out cost, 300 bil mortage/ housing price stabilization equally? Health care subsidy for retiree?
I prefer vegan pizza & I hope the gov buy that healthy pizza from sustainable resources.
By nemo on 10.08.08 9:00 am
what does this say about those that go first always take the biggest pieces. utilitarianism conflicts with natural selection, where the bigger stronger are more able to survive because might is right. social contracts fail when fear sets in, just as we have now in the loss of confidence in the economy due largely to fraudulent promises made while the pie was being cut . (π)
By puppett on 10.08.08 4:14 pm
i thought utilitarian means everyone has an equal share which causing economic ineffieciency?
By henry on 10.11.08 1:01 am
teh, gitu yah..
i need more discussion on utilitarian teh, but on environmental issue. is it possible to chat or have intense emailing activity with u?
mer: email is best, though i tend to be tardy in responding, but we can try. i don’t really chat much.
By M on 10.19.08 9:33 pm
Utilitarianists argue that what they advocate contributes to economic growth and the solution of major societal problems, and then let other areas of policy (social one) worry about whether the benefits are distributed equally or not, or whether everybody get benefit or not — they ‘grow the pie’ someone else cuts it.
i meant these sentence teh. i kinda buy their argument. salah ya?
mer: the point is they aim on ‘collective growth’, no concern for equality while obviously the direct impact is inequality. so, it’s kinda oxymoron and irresponsible
By M on 10.19.08 9:39 pm
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>