Introduction
The term “negative utilitarianism” (NU)
was coined by Sir Karl Popper (Popper, Karl: 1952. The Open Society and its
Enemies. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. vol. I ch.5, note 6).
Negative utilitarian principle is that we should act to minimize suffering
rather than maximize pleasure.
In this articles Isaac Levy offers novel
solutions to the flaws of the original NU formulation.
Supportive Overview of NU
It adds to the clarity of ethics if we
demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness.
There is no moral obligation to increase the happiness of someone who is
already doing well. Neither there is a moral obligation to inject pleasure into
people’s lives.
Furthermore, from the ethical point of
view, there is no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and
pleasure. We would be morally bankrupt if we inject a unit of pain in order to
achieve one or more units of pleasure.
NU does not attempt to minimize all kinds
of suffering but only the suffering that stems from evil. Evil is the
avoidable, unnecessary, or undeserved suffering of sentient creatures. Not all
suffering is evil. For example the suffering of a college student or a young
athlete is necessary to build competence and a well-rounded character. So
suffering that is intended for the long-term good of individuals or societies
need not be eliminated.
In Utilitarian formulation the quality as
well of the quantity of utility must be taken into account. For starters a
multiplication of quality*quantity provides a basic model. It implies that a
huge suffering of a minority cannot be justified by small reductions of
suffering or pleasures of a majority.
Politicians are engaged in positive
utilitarianism and make euphoric, unachievable, and unenforceable promises.
Even a rule positive Utilitarianism may lead to revolt and civil disobedience
and disrespect for the society and the law when the pleasures of some takes
precedence over the sufferings and depravations of others.
So in the quality*quantity formulae if
pleasure is set at quality of zero, then no pleasure induced at one end could
justify the corresponding pain and suffering induced at another end.
NU eliminates euphoria be it due to
communism, capitalism or other isms. NU goals are modest, enforceable, and
widely agreeable. NU as a conservative political principle has advantages, in
that people more readily agree on evils than on goods.
Furthermore, NU recognizes that seeking
pleasure as a goal often paradoxically leads to more suffering.
Imposing rules provides guidance,
consistency and clarity. The rational for imposing rules must be understood.
For example, Rule utilitarianism would not allow sacrificing innocent
bystanders since it reckons that such frequent acts may lead to large scale
sacrifices and catastrophes.
Anwering the Critics
Critics of Rule Utilitarianism allege that
in some circumstances General Rules increase pain and suffering. (For example
not killing an attacker in self-defense or not destroying life stock that may
spread a contagious disease.)
In response supporters of Rule
Utilitarianism claim that exceptions to the rule will take care of aberrant
cases.
Yet the critics counter punch that too
many exceptions will make Rule Utilitarianism equivalent to Act Utilitarianism.
At this juncture, a novel formulation of
NU should state that rules must be based on a hierarchy. The hierarchy is based
on precedence of rules. Higher rules in the hierarchy may override lower rules.
For example the right to self-defense ought to be higher in the hierarchy than
the “thou shall not kill” law.
So "thou shall not kill" is overridden by self-defense rule. So based
on such hierarchy it is easy to conclude that killing for self-defense is
justified.
Another example: lying ought to be lower
in the moral hierarchy than "thou shall not kill." So lying, although
immoral, may be overridden or justified by the "thou shall not kill"
law. That is lying that saves innocent lives is justified.
So Unlimited exceptions need not sprout
arbitrarily from general rules. Rather in a hierarchical scheme the old
exceptions are derived from the moral hierarchy.
Opponents of NU also claim that taken to
an extreme, NU would lead to rapid large scale suicides or even the
annihilation of the human race. Since suffering could be eliminated if all life
is destroyed.
Although this appears far-fetched, in
certain sects or societies mass suicides have occurred even though the rational
of the suicides was not based on NU.
First, reduction of pain and suffering is
the instinctive goal of sentient creatures. NU is merely a reformulation of
natural tendency of every sentient being to reduce suffering. Resistance to
suffering may be likened to the law of inertia governing physical bodies. The
preference to survive is stronger than the wish to be freed from suffering, so
the idea of a quick and painless destruction of life is refused and on the
contrary by reducing unnecessary suffering, NU may lead to greater desires to
live.
Furthermore, NU recognizes that
depravation from happiness is evil. Depravation is equivalent to the increase
of unnecessary suffering. For example in a prosperous society to purposely not
send a child to school or knowingly not let him/her grow physically,
intellectually or emotionally has long term evil consequences for the child. So
reduction of evil is also about growing and leading full lives.
Nevertheless, Rule NU can put the whole
debate to rest by asserting that sanctity of life or survival is the highest
point in the moral hierarchy. After all what is the point of reducing suffering
when life does not exist? So NU or the reduction of suffering is for the sake
of life itself. Otherwise the whole point is missed.
Harshest critics of Rule NU claim that one
cannot predict long-term outcomes. So Rule Utilitarianism, which attempt to
maximize long term goals, is flawed.
But as intelligent being we are engaged in
fabricating our lives and constituting better judicial and political systems.
Sure, errors and miscalculations, be it due to poor judgment, lack of
knowledge, or emotional blindness, do occur. But this should not mean that we
should not take the consequences of our actions into account. Doing nothing out
of fear of erring is also morally reprehensible. When rationally, and with high
degree of certainty, we could envision some long term consequences, we need to
take the appropriate actions; otherwise, we would be even more negligent and
culpable.
Copyright ©2006, Isaac Levy
