2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

B.Contestabileadmin@socrethics.comFirstversion2005Lastversion2016




TableofContents

Abstract

1.Introduction
2.RawlsTheoryofJustice
2.1SocialContractTheory
2.2Impartiality
2.3RawlsPrinciples
2.4ComparisonwithBenthamsandPigousUtilitarianism
2.5ComparisonwithMillsUtilitarianism
2.6ComparisonwithHarsanyisUtilitarianism
3.NegativeUtilitarianism(NU)
3.1HistoricalBackground
3.2Definition
3.3ModernNU
3.4Implementation
3.5ComparisonwithRawlsTheory
3.6ComparisonwithBuddhism
4.Conclusion

References





Abstract


Startingpoint
StartingpointofthispaperisPopperscontroversialstatement
fromthemoralpointofview,paincannotbeoutweighedbypleasureandespeciallynot
onemanspainbyanothermanspleasure[Popper,284].
Thiscitationaddressesawellknowndiscomfortwiththeclassicalutilitarianaccumulationof
sufferingandhappinessacrossdifferentpeople.Parfitsclaimaboutcompensation[Parfit,
337]andWolfsmiseryprinciple[Wolf,63]agreewithPoppersintuition.


Typeofproblem
Doesnegativeutilitarianismsolvetheproblemofcompensation?
WhatarethedifferencesbetweennegativeutilitarianismandRawlsconceptofjustice?


http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 1/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

Negativeutilitarianism
Negativeutilitarianism(NU)isanumbrellatermforethicswhichmodelstheasymmetry
betweensufferingandhappiness[Fricke,14].Itincludesconceptsthat
assignarelativeprioritytotheavoidanceofsuffering
assignanabsoluteprioritytotheavoidanceofsuffering
considernonexistencetobethebeststateofaffairs

Inthispaperweinvestigatecompensationacrossdifferentpersons(interpersonal
compensation).Forcompensationwithinthesameperson(intrapersonalcompensation)see
WhyIm(Not)aNegativeUtilitarian.

Arelativepriorityof(theavoidanceof)sufferingmeansthathappinesshasmoralvalue,but
lessthansuffering.Themoralweightofsufferingcanbeincreasedbyusinga"compassionate"
metric,sothattheresultisthesameasinprioritarianism.Themoreweightisassignedto
suffering,themoredifficultitbecomestocompensatesufferingbyhappiness.Theintuition
thatglobalsufferingcannotbecompensatedbyhappinessturnsglobalwellbeingnegative,
sothatthemaximizationofhappinessturnsintoaminimizationofsuffering.Therationalityof
thisintuitionisinvestigatedinTheDenialoftheWorldfromanImpartialView.

Absolutepriorityrepresentsabordercaseofrelativepriority,wherethemoralweightof
happinessconvergestowardszero.Absoluteprioritycanbeapproximatedbyrelativepriority.
Relativepriorityisthegeneralmodel.

TheclaimthatnonexistenceisthebeststateofaffairsiscounterintuitiveformostNon
Buddhists.


Rawlstheoryversusnegativeutilitarianism
Priorityofhumanrights:
Innegativeutilitarianismitistheoreticallypossibletooverridehumanrights,ifitservesthe
minimizationofnegativetotalwelfare.
InRawlsTheoryofJusticeitisimpossibletooverridehumanrights,evenifthisprinciple
causestheperpetuationofsuffering.

Distributionofwelfareamongsocialclasses:
Rawlsdifferenceprincipleaccordswellwiththeintentionsofnegativeutilitarianism,ifthe
termwelfareisinterpretedaslifesatisfaction.

Compensationamonggenerations:
Innegativeutilitarianismagenerationmaybeobligedtosacrificethemselves,ifitservesthe
longtermreductionofsuffering.
InRawlstheorytheideaofasacrificeispreventedbytheprincipleofintergenerational
impartiality.

FromanegativeutilitarianperspectivethemosturgentamendmentstoRawlstheoryarethe
following:
Aprinciplefortheprotectionofnoncontractualcases(includingsentientanimals)
Ariskaversepopulationpolicy
Ariskaverseprinciplefortechnologicalprogress.





1. Introduction

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 2/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

Startingpoint
StartingpointofthispaperisPopperscontroversialstatement
fromthemoralpointofview,paincannotbeoutweighedbypleasureandespeciallynot
onemanspainbyanothermanspleasure[Popper,284].
Thiscitationaddressesawellknowndiscomfortwiththeclassicalutilitarianaccumulationof
sufferingandhappinessacrossdifferentpeople.Parfitsclaimaboutcompensation[Parfit,
337]andWolfsmiseryprinciple[Wolf,63]agreewithPoppersintuition.


Typeofproblem
1.Doesnegativeutilitarianismsolvetheproblemofcompensation?
2.WhatarethedifferencesbetweennegativeutilitarianismandRawlsconceptofjustice?




2.RawlsTheoryofJustice



2.1SocialContractTheory

Socialcontracttheoriesaretheoriesonmutualbenefitthroughcooperation.
Contractariansclaimthatmoralprinciplesderivetheirnormativeforcefromtheideaof
contractormutualagreement.Theyarethusskepticalofthepossibilityofgroundingmorality
orpoliticalauthorityineitherdivinewillorsomeperfectionistidealofthenatureofhumanity
(contractarianism,StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy)

Ifanagreementwithmutualbenefitcanbefound,itisrationaltosignacorresponding
contract.Butcontractariansdontclaimthathumanbehaviorcanbedescribedbyrationality.
Theclaimisonlythatrationalityhasanormativeforceindefiningethicalgoals.Rationalityis
apossiblecommondenominatortoovercometheculturaldiversityofethicalnorms.

1)Contractarianism,whichstemsfromtheHobbesianlineofsocialcontractthought,holds
thatpersonsareprimarilyselfinterested,andthatarationalassessmentofthebeststrategy
forattainingthemaximizationoftheirselfinterestwillleadthemtoactmorally(where
themoralnormsaredeterminedbythemaximizationofjointinterest)andtoconsentto
governmentalauthority.Gauthier,Narveson,orBuchananareHobbesiancontractarians.
2)Contractualism,whichstemsfromtheKantianlineofsocialcontractthought,holdsthat
rationalityrequiresthatwerespectpersons,whichinturnrequiresthatmoralprinciplesbe
suchthattheycanbejustifiedtoeachperson.Thus,individualsarenottakentobe
motivatedbyselfinterestbutratherbyacommitmenttopubliclyjustifythestandardsof
moralitytowhicheachwillbeheld.RawlsorScanlonareKantiancontractualists
(Contractarianism,StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy).

Inrealitysocialcontractsmayprimarilybeshapedbyselfinterest,butRawlstheoryis
normativeandnotdescriptive[Rawls1958,183].Thegoalistoestablishanethicalideal
againstwhichsocialcontractscanbemeasured.Contractarianidealsarebasedontheconcept
ofimpartiality.



2.2Impartiality


Origin
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 3/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

1.Kant'scategoricalimperativeisthebestknowndefinitionofanimpartialmorallaw.But
theideaofmoralimpartialityismucholderandcanbefoundinmanyreligionsunderthe
termGoldenRuleorethicofreciprocity.Ithasbeenspeculatedthatempathylies
behindtheprevalenceoftheGoldenRule.
2.TheancientStoicSkeptictraditionmadeasignificantimpactonthemostprominent
ethicaltheoryofmodernEuropei.e.onImmanuelKantsmoralphilosophy.TheKantian
Hellenisticidealisoriginating,inmyview,fromthemoreprofoundandmoresystematic
ethicalteachingsoftheBuddhistIndia[Vukomanovic,167]


Theimpartialobserver
Acontractisimpartialiftheprinciples
1)donotdependonthespecificinterestsofasinglecontractororagroupofcontractors
2)donotdependontemporarycircumstances
Sincepoliticsischaracterizedbyconflictinginterests,onlyanimpartialobservercoulddesign
thiskindofprinciples.TheideaofanimpartialobserverwasfirstmentionedbyAdamSmith
inhisTheoryofMoralSentimentsandlatertakenupbyHarsanyiandRawls.
1.InhisTheoryofJusticeRawlsusedthefollowingthoughtexperimenttoderivethe
conditionsofanimpartialcontract:Acontractisimpartial,ifitisderivedfromanoriginal
positioninwhichrationalcontractorsunderaveilofignorancedecidehowtheywishto
committhemselvestobeinggovernedintheiractuallives(JusticeasaVirtue,Stanford
EncyclopediaofPhilosophy).Behindsuchaveilofignoranceallindividualsarespecified
asrational,free,andmorallyequalbeings.Behindtheveilofignorance,whatwillthe
rationalchoicebeforfundamentalprinciplesofsociety?Theonlysafeprincipleswillbe
impartialprinciples,foryoudonotknowwhetheryouwouldsufferorbenefitfromthe
structureofanybiasedinstitutions.
2.RawlscalledthisconceptJusticeasfairness.Justiceinastrictsensewouldinclude
equalityofopportunityinallaspectsoflife.Fairnessisnotequivalenttojustice,but
representsapracticablebenchmarkforexistingpoliticalsystems.
Impartialitygetssupportfromrecentdiscoveriesinbiology.Weareall,regardlessofrace,
genetically99.9%thesame(Wikipedia,HumanGenome).Inotherwords:99.9%ofthe
humangenesarepermanentlybeingreincarnated.


Buchanansanarchisticequilibrium
Buchananstheoryquestionstheroleoftheimpartialobserverinestablishingasocialcontract.
Thereisnouniqueinterpretationoftheimpartialobserver.Ishe/sherisktolerantorrisk
averse?Theconceptattemptstocircumventtheproblemofincomparableindividualutilities,
butnowtheproblemreappearsintheambiguouscharacteristicsoftheobserver.

Buchananreplacestheveilofignorancebyananarchisticequilibrium,wherepeoplewith
differentinterestsovercomeanarchybyasocialcontract.Dependingonthesocialstatusofan
individual,theinteresttosignsuchacontractisstrongerorweaker.




Ieitherwantlesscorruptionormorechancetoparticipateinit!

AshleighBrilliant




Thepropagationofuniversalsolidarityandcompassioncanbeinterpretedasastrategyof
theinfirm(asNietzschedid).
Ontheotherhand,eventherichpeoplebecomeweakwithageandthewealthypartofthe
populationiswillingtopayapriceforstability.
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 4/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

AccordingtoBuchananthecourtsaresolelymediatorsbetweentheparties.Theyareobliged
tostrictneutralityandhavenocompetenceindefiningjustice(konomischeEthik,Roland
Vaubel).
FromtheperspectiveofRawlsoriginalposition,Buchanansvisionofjusticeisrather
descriptivethannormative.Itlackstheconstituentstoconstructanethicalideal.


Nozicksliberalism
Nozick,aswellasBuchanan,questionstheobjectivityofriskaversionandcompassion.
Heemphasizestheimportanceofpropertyrightsandpromotesaminimalstate.Thetaskof
theminimalstateistoprotectpropertyagainstviolenceandtheft,butredistribution(like
Rawlsdifferenceprinciple)hasnomoralfoundation.
FromtheperspectiveofRawlsoriginalposition,Buchanansvisionofjusticeisdistorted
bytemporaryandbiasedinterests.Itdoesnotaccountfordifferencesintalentandthe
contingencyoflifestories.SimilartoBuchanansvision,itlackstheconstituentsto
constructanethicalideal.


Geusshistoricalandpracticalapproach
RaymondGeussfavorsanapproachtopoliticalphilosophyinwhichonestudies,history,
socialandeconomicinstitutions,andtherealworldofpoliticsinareflectiveway.He
thinksthatinusingabstractmethodsinpoliticalphilosophy,onewillsucceedmerelyin
generalizingone'sownlocalprejudices,andrepackagingthemasdemandsofreason.The
studyofhistorycanhelptocounteractthisnaturalhumanbias.
Rawlsthinksthatquitethecontrarytheinterpretationofhistoryisdrivenbylocaland
temporaryprejudicesandthatabstractionisthemostpromisingapproachtoovercomethe
naturalhumanbias.



2.3RawlsPrinciples

Justicehasseveraldimensions,someofwhichcanbeinfluenced,whereasotherscant.Rawls
TheoryofJusticerestrictstheinvestigationtothosedimensionsthatcanbeinfluenced.


Definition
1)Firstprincipleofjustice:Eachpersonistohaveanequalrighttothemostextensivetotal
systemofequalbasiclibertiescompatiblewithasimilarsystemoflibertyforall.
2)Secondprincipleofjustice:Socialandeconomicinequalitiesaretobearrangedsothat
theyareboth
a)attachedtoofficesandpositionsopentoallunderconditionsoffairequalityof
opportunityand
b)tothegreatestbenefitoftheleastadvantaged,consistentwiththejustsavingsprinciple
(DistributiveJustice,Wikipedia)
Justsavingsiswhatagenerationowesitsdescendants:
immaterialvalues:justinstitutions,culturalvalues
ineconomicterms:capital,factories,machines,knowledge,techniques,skills,natural
resourcesetc.
Thejustsavingsprinciplefollowsfromtheprincipleofintergenerationalimpartiality(see
below).


Priorities
Theprinciplesareorderedinlexicalpriorityasfollows:
1)Thelibertyprinciple:Thebasiclibertiesofcitizensare,roughlyspeaking,politicalliberty
(i.e.,tovoteandrunforoffice)freedomofspeechandassembly,libertyofconscience,
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 5/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

freedomofpropertyandfreedomfromarbitraryarrest.Itisamatterofsomedebate
whetherfreedomofcontractcanbeinferredasbeingincludedamongthesebasicliberties.
Notmentionedinthislistbutnaturallyassumedistheprotectionofthecitizensphysical
integrity.

2)Thearrangementofsocialandeconomicinequalities:
a)Theprincipleoffairequalityofopportunityrequiresnotmerelythatofficesand
positionsaredistributedonthebasisofmerit,butthatallhavereasonableopportunity
toacquiretheskillsonthebasisofwhichmeritisassessed.
b)Thedifferenceprinciplestrivesforthegreatestbenefittotheleastadvantagedmembers
ofsociety.
TheoryofJustice,Wikipedia


Libertyandhumanrights
1.Rightstheoristsdemandthat(1)and(2a)conformtotheUniversalDeclarationofHuman
Rights.Byassigninglexicalprioritytohumanrightstheybecomeasideconstraintfor
everytheorythatseeksaquantitativeoptimizationofthestateofaffairs.
2.Libertiesareconnectedtoduties(seerightsdutyduality).Humanrightsbalancetheright
toliberty(ofthestrong)withtherighttoprotection(oftheweak).


Libertyandredistribution
Asocialcontractbasedonthelibertyprincipleiscompatiblewithcapitalismandproduces
socialandeconomicinequalities.BernardMandeville,an18thcenturypoliticaleconomistand
satirist,postulatedinhisFableoftheBeesthatviciousgreedleadstoinvisiblecooperationif
properlychanneled.TheideawastakenupbyAdamSmith,whoclaimedthat,incapitalism,
egoisticbehaviorpromotesthegoodofthecommunitythroughaprinciplethathecalledthe
invisiblehand.Experiencehasshownhoweverthattheinvisiblehandcannotprotectmany
peoplefromstarvingandthatfreemarketshavetobecomplementedbyredistribution.
TheessenceofRawlsunderstandingoflibertycanbefoundinthePreambleoftheFederal
ConstitutionoftheSwissFederation:
onlythosewhousetheirfreedomremainfree,andthestrengthofapeopleismeasuredby
thewellbeingofitsweakestmembers


Fairequalityofopportunity
Rawlsconceptofequalityofopportunitygoesbeyondtheoneofclassicalutilitarianism.He
deniesanoverrepresentationofupperclassmembersinofficesandpositionsevenifit
producesanincreaseintotalwelfare.Theequalformalaccesstoofficesandpositionsisnot
sufficientthestatisticalprobabilityforlowerclassmemberstosucceedhastobethesameas
forupperclassmembers.Foranexamplesee[Clarenbach,chapt.3.2]


Intergenerationalimpartiality
Ifnotmentionedotherwiseinthispaper,thetermintergenerationalimpartialityisusedinthe
senseofintergenerationalmoralimpartiality(seeImpartiality,StanfordEncyclopediaof
Philosophy).
AccordingtoRawlsitisunjusttolettheactualgenerationwithitstemporaryandbiased
interestsdecideaboutthefateoffuturegenerations.Theprincipleofimpartialityshouldnot
onlygovernthedistributivejusticewithintheactualgeneration,butalsoamongdifferent
generations.
1.Theprinciplesaysthattheactualgenerationisnotallowedtoimproveitssituationatthe
costoffuturegenerations.
2.Inverselyitsaysthattheactualgenerationcannotbeobligedtosacrificeitselfforfuture
generations.

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 6/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

AccordingtoRawlstheprincipleofintergenerationalimpartialityfollowsfromtheideaofthe
originalposition.
Butthedistributionofeconomicwelfareamonggenerationsisthesubjectofacontroversial
discussionsee
1)Shouldwediscountfuturegenerationswelfare?
2)TheEthicsofClimateChange[Broome2008].



2.4ComparisonwithBenthamsandPigousUtilitarianism

Westartwithacomparisonoftheeconomicaspectofjustice,representedby
1.Rawlsdifferenceprinciple
2.BenthamsandPigouswelfarefunctions


Terminology
1)Inclassicalutilitarianismutilityisafunctionofconsumption.Consumptionismeasuredin
termsofpreferencesforgoodsandservices.Utilityisassociatedwiththehappinesswhich
iscreatedbyconsumption[Bentham,120].
a)Theprincipleofutilityistheprinciplethatactionsaretobejudgedbytheirusefulness
inthissense:theirtendencytoproducebenefit,advantage,pleasure,good,orhappiness
[Broome1999,19]
b)Utilityisthevalueofafunctionthatrepresentsapersonspreferences[Broome1999,
21].
2)Inclassicalutilitarianismutilityiscardinallymeasurableandinterpersonallycomparable.
Thetermsocialwelfarecorrespondstotheaccumulatedutilitiesofallindividualswithin
thesociety.FordetailsonBenthamsutilitarianismseeShortHistoryofWelfare
Economics.
3)Ifnotmentionedotherwiseinthispaperthetermshappinessand(positive)welfareare
usedassynonyms.


Rawlsdifferenceprinciple
Thedifferenceprincipleholdsthatdifferencesinwealth,status,etc.canbedefendedonlyif
theycreateasystemofmarketforcesandcapitalaccumulationwhoseproductivitymakesthe
lowliestmembersofsocietybetteroffthantheywouldbeunderamoreegalitariansystem.
Thedifferenceprincipleisthesafestprinciple(JusticeasFairness,byCharlesD.Kay)and
correspondstoariskaversestrategy(RawlsUnriskyBusiness,byJimHolt).Its
implementationthoughisfarfromtrivial:

1.Maximininterpretation:
Ifagents(A,B)canhaveincomes(5,6)or(4,9)thentheformerdistributionhastobe
chosen.
Maximinencountersthefollowingproblem:Ifagents(A,B,C)canhaveincomes(5,6,9)
or(5,7,8),thenMaximinisindifferent

2.Leximininterpretation(nottobeconfusedwiththelexicalpriorityofhumanrights):
Ifagents(A,B,C)canhaveincomes(5,6,9)or(5,7,8)thenthelatterdistributionhasto
bechosen.Thesecondworstoffdecides.IfBsincomeisthesameinbothdistributions,
thenCsincomedecidesetc.
Leximinencountersthefollowingproblem:IfagentAsincomeisminimallyhigherinthe
seconddistributionandtheincomeofBandCconsiderablylower,thenthefirst
distributionhastobechosen.Thisconsequenceiscalleddictatorshipoftheworstoff(see
TheDifferencePrinciple).

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 7/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

3.Prioritarianinterpretation:LetsreturntoRawlsdefinitionofthedifferenceprinciple:
Socialandeconomicinequalitiesaretobearrangedsothattheyare()tothegreatest
benefitoftheleastadvantaged().Thetermgreatestcanbeinterpretedinsuchaway
thateverybodyprofitsfrominequalities,butthattheleastadvantagedprofitmost.A
prioritarianrulewoulde.g.distributesavingsinsuchawaythatthequotaincreaseswith
decreasingwelfare.Converselythetaxesowedwouldincreasewithincreasingwelfare.

Formoreinformationonthisissuesee
1.Whoaretheleastadvantaged?,byBertilTungoddenandPeterVallentyne
2.RawlsDifferenzprinzipundseineDeutungen,byPeterKoller,ZeitschriftErkenntnis,
Vol.20,No.1,1983

InordertocompareRawlsdifferenceprinciplewithBenthamsandPigousutilitarianism,we
havetomapittoawelfarefunction.InthiscomparisonwewillusetheMaximininterpretation
ofthedifferenceprinciple.Maxiministherulethatismostfrequentlyassociatedwiththe
differenceprinciple.


WelfarefunctionaccordingtoBentham
LetsassumethesocietyconsistsoftwopersonsP1andP2,whodisposeoftwogoodsG1and
G2.ThewelfarefunctionaccordingtoBenthamwouldlookasfollows:
1.Socialwelfare(W)isthetotalofthetwoindividualutilities(U):W=U1+U2
2.Theutilityfunctionsareidenticalforbothpersons.Itisassumedthattheutility
(usefulness)ofthetwogoodsisthesameforbothpersons.
3.Theutilitydependslinearly(factorsa1,a2)onthequantities(q)ofthegoods.
U1=(a1xq11)+(a2xq12)
U2=(a1xq21)+(a2xq22)
whereq12=thequantityofgoodG2,consumedbypersonP1.
UnderthesepremisessocialwelfareshouldincreaselinearlywiththeGrossNationalProduct
(GNP).
[Kleinewefers,40]


WelfarefunctionaccordingtoPigou
Benthamcorrelatedhappinesswiththemeanstohappiness.Thewealthierapersonis,the
greaterthehappinesshecanattain.However,herecognizedtheprincipleofdiminishing
marginalutility,i.e.thatthegreatertheamountofutilityapersonalreadyhas,thesmallerwill
betheutilitygainofanyextraincrementofwealth(JeremyBentham)
Theconceptofdiminishingmarginalutilityhasalonghistory(seeMarginalism,Wikipedia).
ItwasGossenwhofoundaconvincingmathematicalformulationandPigou(notBentham)
whointroduceditinawelfarefunction.
LetsassumethesocietyconsistsoftwopersonsP1andP2,whodisposeoftwogoodsG1and
G2.ThewelfarefunctionaccordingtoPigouwouldlookasfollows:
1.Socialwelfare(W)isthetotalofthetwoindividualutilities(U):W=U1+U2
2.Theutilityfunctionisidenticalforbothpersons.Itisassumedthattheutility(usefulness)
ofthetwogoodsisthesameforbothpersons.
3.TheutilityfunctionU=U(q1,q2)isoftheGossentype,i.e.themarginalutilitydecreases
withincreasingconsumption.
UnderagivenGNPthemaximumsocialwelfarecanbeattained,ifthegoodsareequally
distributedamongthetwopersons[Kleinewefers,41].Formoreinformationontheterm
welfarefunctionseeShortHistoryofWelfareEconomics.


Comparison
AwelfarefunctionaccordingtoBenthamsumstheutilityofeachindividualinordertoobtain
society'soverallwelfare.Allpeoplearetreatedthesame,regardlessoftheirinitiallevelof
utility.Oneextraunitofutilityforastarvingpersonisnotseentobeofanygreatervaluethan
anextraunitofutilityforamillionaire.AttheotherextremeistheMaximinwelfarefunction.
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 8/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

AccordingtotheMaximincriterion,welfareismaximizedwhentheutilityofthosesociety
membersthathavetheleastisthegreatest.Noeconomicactivitywillincreasesocialwelfare
unlessitimprovesthepositionofthesocietymemberthatistheworstoff.Mosteconomists
specifysocialwelfarefunctionsthatareintermediatebetweenthesetwoextremes.Thesocial
welfarefunctionistypicallytranslatedintosocialindifferencecurves(Welfareeconomics,
Wikipedia)
Anindifferencecurveshowscombinationsofindividualutilitieswhichmakenodifference
withregardtothetotal(socialwelfare):

Thispicturewastakenfromtheinternet(authorunknown)


TheUtilitarianSocialIndifferenceCurvesonthelefthandsidecorrespondtodifferent
levelsofsocialwelfare(W)inBenthamswelfarefunction.Sinceautilitariansocial
indifferencecurveconfinesanisoscelestriangle,eachtotalofindividualutilities
representedbyapointonthecurve,resultsinthesamevalue.Nomatterhowunequalthe
distributionis,animprovementofutilityoftherichindividualalwayscompensatesthe
lossinutilityofthepoorindividual.
TheMaxMin(respectivelyMaximin)SocialIndifferenceCurvesinthemiddlecorrespond
todifferentlevelsofsocialwelfareinaRawlsiansociety.ThesocialwelfareofaMaximin
socialindifferencecurveisthesumoftwoequalutilitiesandisdepictedbythevertexof
thecurve.Increasingtheutilityofonlyoneperson(nomatterhowmuch)doesntincrease
socialwelfare.
TheIntermediateSocialIndifferenceCurvesontherighthandsidecanbeinterpretedas
showingthatasinequalityincreases,alargerimprovementintheutilityofrelativelyrich
individualsisneededtocompensateforthelossinutilityofrelativelypoorindividuals
(Welfareeconomics,Wikipedia)

HowdoestheMaximin(Rawlsian)indifferencecurverelatetoPigouswelfarefunction?Is
thedifferenceprinciplecompatiblewiththeprincipleofdiminishingmarginalutility?
Theneoclassicalprincipleofdiminishingmarginalutilitysaysthatthegreatertheamountof
utilityapersonalreadyhasthesmallerwillbetheutilitygainofanyextraincrementof
wealth.Asaconsequence,totalutilitycanbeincreasedbyaredistributionofwelfarefromthe
richtothepoor.Underthesepremisesutilitarianismbecomesegalitarianandcorrespondsto
theMaximinprinciple(seeShortHistoryofWelfareEconomics).
Rawlssobjectionisofcoursethatutilitarianismdoesnotprotecttheclaimsofthemost
deprivedfrombeingsetasideinfavorofgreaterbenefitstoother,betteroff,socialgroups.But
thisargumentisdisputable:utilitarianswillarguethatgiventhediminishingmarginalutilityof
wealth,thegoalofmaximizingaveragewelfarewilldirectasocietytoprioritize
improvementsinthesituationofthemostdeprived.Andwhenoneconsidersthedetailof
Rawlssproposedpoliciesforimplementinghisdifferenceprinciple,itishardtoseeanything
incompatiblewiththeimplicationsofanenlightenedutilitarianism(QuestionsofJustice).

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 9/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

Ifwetakeintoaccountthatthesocietystotalincomeisnegativelyaffectedbythe
redistribution(becausehardworkingpeoplelosethemotivationtocreateadditionalincome)
thentheoptimalredistributionisratherprioritarianthanegalitarianandcanbeassociatedwith
theprioritarianinterpretationofthedifferenceprinciple.Thisinterpretationcorrespondstothe
intermediatesocialindifferencecurveshownontherighthandsideofabovediagram.


Thelibertyprinciple
Thetwoassumptionsofclassicalutilitarianism
1.individualshavingsimilarutilityfunctions
2.diminishingmarginalutility
canbeinterpretedasmoralandpoliticalprinciplesinasomewhattechnicallanguage(rather
thanpsychologicalpropositions).
OnemightsaythatthisiswhatBenthamandothersreallymeantbythem,atleastasshownby
howtheywereusedinargumentsforsocialreform().Butthisstillleavethemistaken
notionthatthesatisfactionofdesirehasvalueinitself().Toseetheerrorofthisideaone
mustgiveuptheconceptionofjusticeasanexecutivedecisionaltogetherandrefertothe
notionofjusticeasfairness.Participantsinthesocialcontracthaveanoriginalandequal
libertyandtheircommonpracticesareconsideredunjustunlesstheyaccordwithprinciples
whichthecontractorsfreelyacknowledgebeforeoneanotherandsoacceptasfair[Rawls
1958,191192].
Justicecannotbetheresultofanexecutivedecisionwhichmaximizesthetotalutilityofthe
societyitmustbeaconsensusofcontractorswithregardtolibertyandsolidarity.This
consensusorcompromiseisanexampleofareflectiveequilibrium.


Animalrights
AmajorpointofcriticisminRawlsconceptisthelackingprotectionofanimals.The
impartialobservershouldprotectallsentientbeingsaccordingtotheirdegreeofsuffering,no
matteriftheythinkrationalandnomatteriftheyareabletosignacontract.Suchanimpartial
observer,though,wouldtranscendtheboundariesofsocialcontracttheory.
Benthambecameknownasoneofthemostinfluentialoftheutilitarians,throughhisown
workandthatofhisstudents.Theseincludedhissecretaryandcollaboratorontheutilitarian
schoolofphilosophy,JamesMillJamesMill'ssonJohnStuartMillandseveralpolitical
leadersincludingRobertOwen,wholaterbecameafounderofsocialism()
Benthamiswidelyrecognizedasoneoftheearliestproponentsofanimalrights.Heargued
thatanimalpainisverysimilartohumanpainandthatthedaymaycomewhentherestofthe
animalcreationmayacquirethoserightswhichnevercouldhavebeenwithholdenfromthem
butbythehandoftyranny.Benthamarguedthattheabilitytosuffer,nottheabilitytoreason,
mustbethebenchmarkofhowwetreatotherbeings.Iftheabilitytoreasonwerethecriterion,
manyhumanbeings,includingbabiesanddisabledpeople,wouldalsohavetobetreatedas
thoughtheywerethings(JeremyBentham,Wikipedia)

Rawlswasconsciousthathisconceptdoesntincludeallaspectsofethics:
Justiceasfairnessisnotacompletecontracttheory.Foritisclearthatthecontractarianidea
canbeextendedtothechoiceofmoreorlessanentireethicalsystem,thatis,toasystem
includingprinciplesforallthevirtuesandnotonlyforjustice()Obviouslyifjusticeas
fairnesssucceedsreasonablywell,anextstepwouldbetostudythemoregeneralview
suggestedbythename"rightnessasfairness."Buteventhiswidertheoryfailstoembraceall
moralrelationships,sinceitwouldseemtoincludeonlyourrelationswithotherpersonsandto
leaveoutofaccounthowwearetoconductourselvestowardanimalsandtherestofnature.I
donotcontendthatthecontractnotionoffersawaytoapproachthesequestionswhichare
certainlyofthefirstimportanceandIshallhavetoputthemaside.Wemustrecognizethe
limitedscopeofjusticeasfairness(AnimalEthics)

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 10/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

2.5ComparisonwithMillsUtilitarianism


LiberalismaccordingtoMill
JohnRawls,inhishistoryofpoliticalphilosophy[RawlsLectures],warnedtodisesteemJohn
StuartMill,anindicationthatheappreciatedMillswork.Thereis,however,aprofound
differencebetweenliberalismandutilitarianism:
Utilitarianismattemptstoincreasethetotalutilityofthecommunity.Theindividualis
subordinatedtothisgoal.
Liberalismclaimsthatindividualactionsareonlyrestrictedbytheconditionnottoharm
others.
HowcouldMillclaimthatliberalismiscompatiblewithutilitarianism?

ThekeyforcompatibilityliesinMillsinterpretationofutility[Schefczyk]:
1.MillstandsinthetraditionofEpicurusandBenthamaccordingtowhichhappiness
(respectivelytheabsenceofsuffering)istheonlyrationalgoalofhumanbehavior.Mills
innovationwastointroducearankingfordifferentkindsofhappiness.Therankingis
justifiedbycompetence,i.e.bythejudgmentofexperiencedpersons.Thejudgmentif
footballispreferabletotheoperacanonlybemadebypersonswhomadeapositive
experiencewithbothkindsofevents.Peoplewhodontenjoytheopera(ordonteven
knowit)cannotmorallyvaluatethecorrespondingkindofhappinesstheylackaspecific
perception,respectivelyknowledge.
2.Evenifallcompetentpersonsaccordinrankingpleasuresthenthisrankingisstillnot
generallyrelevant.Thelifeofanindividualcannotbeimprovedbyimposinganofficial
rankinguponhim/her.
3.Mostphilosophersagreethatthelifeofanunhappyhumanispreferabletothelifeofa
happypig.ButMilldoesntconcludethatweshouldinvestallourenergyintopquality
actions.Allkindsofhappinessreachapointofsatiationandweshouldthereforeattempt
todiversifyourengagements.

TheliberalcharacteristicsofMillsconceptcanbesummarizedasfollows[Schefczyk]:
1.Tolerance,acceptthatperceptionandexperiencesaredifferent
2.Informality
3.Thedenialofexternalandinternalperfectionism
OnthisbasisMillclaimsthatlibertyisaconsequenceoftheutilitariangoal.Sincehumansare
different,thepressureforconformityandthedenialofindividuallibertycontradictsthe
interestsofallhumans.
ThepointinMillsargumentconsistsinnotonlyseeingotherpeopleascompetitorsbutalso
asenrichment.Diversifiedexperiencesproduceempiricaldataaboutpossiblekindsof
happiness.TheethicalidealaccordingtoMillisnotrestrictedtotolerance,itisopenand
affirmativealiberaliswillingtolearnandprofitfromotherpersonsexperiences.


Thepriorityofthelibertyprinciple
Theutilitarianargumentsforthepriorityoflibertyrightsarethefollowing:
1.Withoutlibertytheindividualscannotarticulatetheirpreferencesandthesocietylacks
diversity.Withoutdiversitythereisnomaximizationofutility.
2.Aconstitutionwhichisbasedonlibertyrightsguaranteeslegalsecurity.Thefearof
arbitrariness,tortureetc.causesanenormouslossofutility.
Thegoodsthatareassociatedwiththetermlibertyhaveacorrespondinghighweightwithin
theutilityfunction.But,fromautilitarianpointofview,despiteofthishighweight,thereis
stillatradeoffwithothergoods.
Examples:
1.Aminorworseningoflibertyrightswouldprobablybetoleratedforahugegainin
economicwelfare.Inrealitythepoliticaldebatesprovethatlibertyrightsdonthavean
absolutepriority.Inthetradeoffbetweenlibertyrightsandeconomicwelfarerepressive
regimesoftenfindsupportinthepopulation.
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 11/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

2.Amediccaresfortwopatients,oneofthemdeadlyillandtheotheronecurable.However
hehasonlyonedosageoftherequiredmedicament.Rawlswouldgivethemedicamentto
thedeadlyillbecausehe/shesuffersmore,autilitarianwouldgiveittotheonewiththe
higherpotentialtosurvive.Theutilitarianpositionhasagoodchancetobeacceptedbythe
majority.
[Clarenbach,chapt.3.3]
Incontrast,Rawlslibertyprinciplehaslexicalpriorityanddoesntallowanytradeoff[Rawls
1958,184187].
WhileMillrecognizedthatreasonsforjusticehaveaspecialweight,hethoughtthatitcould
beaccountedforbythespecialurgencyofthemoralfeelingswhichnaturallysupport
principlesofsuchhighutility.Butitisamistaketoresorttotheurgencyoffeelingaswiththe
appealtointuition,itmanifestsafailuretopursuethequestionfarenough[Rawls1958,189].

Example:
Theconceptionofjusticeasfairness,whenappliedtothepracticeofslaverywouldnotallow
onetoconsidertheadvantagesoftheslaveholder().Thegainsaccruingtotheslaveholder
cannotbecountedasinanywaymitigatingtheinjusticeofthepractice[Rawls1958,188].
Classicalutilitarianismingeneral(notonlyMillsutilitarianism)lacksaprincipleforthe
protectionoftheindividual.

TheexampleshowsthatinRawlstheorywhenlibertyisatstakethemeansaremore
importantthantheend.Incontrasttoutilitarianismhesupportstheprocessviewofjusticeand
nottheendstateview(oroutcomeview).


Thesecondprincipleofjustice
Thesecondprincipleexcludesthejustificationofinequalitiesonthegroundsthatthe
disadvantagesofthoseinonepositionareoutweighedbythegreateradvantagesofthosein
anotherposition.ThisrathersimplerestrictionisthemainmodificationIwishtomakeinthe
utilitarianprincipleasusuallyunderstood().Itisarestrictionofconsequence,andone
whichutilitarians,e.g.HumeandMill,haveusedintheirdiscussionsofjusticewithout
realizingapparentlyitssignificance[Rawls1958,168]



2.6ComparisonwithHarsanyisUtilitarianism

Indifferencecurves(asdepictedinchapter2.4)areameanstocompareconceptsof
distributionbutwelackarationalcriteriontoselectaspecificdistributionoutofthemany
possibleones.Gametheoryisapossiblemeanstofindsuchacriterion.Animpartialobserver
intheoriginalpositionconsidersinequalityasarisk,whichhastobeproperlyweightedin
ordertoattainthebeststateofaffairs.


Utility
1.InBenthamsandPigousutilitarianismthetermutilitycorrespondstothehappinesswhich
iscreatedbyconsumption.Inthecourseofhistorytheconceptofutilitybecamemore
abstractandwasfinallyinterpretedasthedominantendofhumanbehavior(nomatter
whatthatis).Thetermpreferencesatisfactioninpreferenceutilitarianismcorrespondsto
thislevelofabstraction.
2.Thereplacementoftheabstractconceptofutilitybytheconcretemeaninghappinessis
calledhedonicreduction.Hedonicreductionopensthetheorytoempiricaltesting[Hirata,
24].Examples:
a.Qualityoflife(sociology)
b.Wellbeing(psychology)
c.Welfare(economics)
d.Lifesatisfaction(happinesseconomics)
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 12/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

e.Qualityadjustedlifeyear(healthcare)
3.Theapplicationofgametheory(awellastheutilitarianwelfarefunction)presupposesthat
utilitycanbemeasuredonacardinalscaleandthatitisamenabletoaninterpersonal
comparison(seeWohlfahrtstheorie).


Gametheory
TheclassicexpositionsofHarsanyiandRawlsproduceasynthesisthatisconsistentwiththe
moderntheoryofnoncooperativegames,seeGameTheoryandtheSocialContract.Froma
gametheoreticalviewHarsanyiutilitarianism iscompatiblewiththedifferenceprinciple
accordingtoRawls.The(riskneutral)Bayesianmaximizationofutilityconvergestowards
Rawls(riskaverse)Maximinprinciple,iftheweightoftheworstcasesincreases.


Consequentialism
Historically,hedonisticutilitarianismistheparadigmaticexampleofaconsequentialistmoral
theory.Thisformofutilitarianismholdsthatwhatmattersistheaggregatehappiness,i.e.the
happinessofeveryoneandnotthehappinessofanyparticularperson(Consequentialism,
Wikipedia)

Whyshouldwesubscribetoconsequentialism?
Anargumentforconsequentialismiscontractarian.Harsanyiarguesthatallinformed,rational
peoplewhoseimpartialityisensuredbecausetheydonotknowtheirplaceinsocietywould
favorakindofconsequentialism.Broome[1991]elaboratesandextendsHarsanyi'sargument
(Consequentialism,StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy)
Thisargumentisofspecialinterestinourcontextbecauseisrevealsthatthecommon
denominatorofHarsanyisutilitarianismandRawlsTheoryofJusticeiscontractarian.Atthe
sametimeHarsanyiopenedthedoortoanewunderstandingofclassicalutilitarianism:
Harsanyisapproachleadstoajustificationofclassicalutilitarianismfromaremarkablynew
pointofview(seeJohnC.Harsanyi)
InthefollowingwecompareRawlsdifferenceprinciplewiththemajorcompetingtheoryof
Harsanyi:


Harsanyisequiprobabilitymodel
Harsanyisequiprobabilitymodel(Gleichwahrscheinlichkeitsmodell)usesthefollowing
definitionofimpartialdecisions:
1.Theimpartialobserverisanindividualwithinsociety.
2.Aftereverydecisioninfluencingorchangingsocietythisindividualcanfindhimselfwith
equalprobabilityineverypossiblepositioninthechangedsociety.
3.Riskisdefinedasaproductofutilityand(mathematical)probability.Theexpectedvalue
ofadecisioniscalculatedbyaddingallpossiblerisks.


Riskneutrality
Harsanyisconcept(similarlytoRawls)convertsnormativestatementsaboutcompassionor
solidarityintonormativestatementsaboutrisk.
[Harsanyi1975]refusesRawlsriskaversestrategy,claimingthatitisirrationaltomake
behaviourdependentonsomehighlyunlikelyunfavourablecontingencyregardlessofitslow
probability.HerecommendsnottobasedecisionsontheworstcasebutontheBayesian
maximizationofutility.Rawlsincontrastisconvincedthattherationalchoiceofanindividual
behindtheveilofignoranceistheMaximinstrategy.


Thepriorityofthelibertyprinciple
Harsanyisconceptisnotrestrictedtotheeconomicaspectofwelfare(thedifference
principle).Heassumesthat,despiteofthehighweightthelibertyprinciplehaswithinthe
utilityfunction,thereisstillatradeoffwithothergoods.Rawlshowever,insistsonthe
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 13/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

absolutepriorityofthelibertyprinciple.Classicalutilitarianismcanonlybereconciledwith
theconceptoffairness,iffairnessisconsideredtobeasideconstraintoftheutilityfunction.
Butthenutilitarianismlosesitscharacteristics:
Ifonewantstocontinueusingtheconceptsofclassicalutilitarianism,atleasttheutility
functionsmustbesodefinedthatnovalueisgiventothesatisfactionofinterestswhich
violatedtheprinciplesofjustice.Inthiswayitisnodoubtpossibletoincludetheseprinciples
withintheformoftheutilitarianconceptionbuttodosois,ofcourse,tochangeitsinspiration
altogetherasamoralconception.Foritistoincorporatewithinitprincipleswhichcannotbe
understoodonthebasisofahigherorderexecutivedecisionaimingatthegreatestsatisfaction
ofdesire[Rawls1958,191].

Example:
RetributivejusticecanbeimplementedwithinasocialcontractoftheRawlstype,buthasno
priorityinthemaximizationofwelfare.Retributivejusticepostulatesthatthereshouldbea
proportionbetweendoingwellandfaringwell.Notonlyistheresultimportantbutalsothe
meansthatproducedtheresult:
1.Relativejustice:Aworldwherethugsfarebetterthandecentpeopleismorally
objectionably,evenifthetotalofthedecentpeopleswelfareisnotaffected[Temkin,354].
2.Absolutejustice:Aworldwherethugsfarewellismorallyobjectionable,evenifdecent
peoplefarebetterthanthugs[Temkin,357]




3.NegativeUtilitarianism(NU)



3.1HistoricalBackground


Ancientworld
1.TheideatoformulateanethicalgoalnegativelyoriginatesinBuddhismandismorethan
2000yearsold.
2.GreekphilosopherEpicurushassometimesbeencaricaturedascrudehedonist.But
Epicurusalsomaintainedthepuzzlingdoctrinethatthecompleteabsenceofpain
constituted"thelimitandhighestpointofpleasure"(Epicurus,DavidPearce)
3.WhileEpicurushasbeencommonlymisunderstoodtoadvocatetherampantpursuitof
pleasure,whathewasreallyafterwastheabsenceofpain(bothphysicalandmental,i.e.,
suffering)astateofsatiationandtranquilitythatwasfreeofthefearofdeathandthe
retributionofthegods.Whenwedonotsufferpain,wearenolongerinneedofpleasure,
andweenterastateof'perfectmentalpeace'(ataraxia).(Epicurus,Wikipedia)


Earlyutilitarianism
HistoricallyutilitarianismwasinspiredbyStoicismandEpicureanismandthereforecloserto
negativeutilitarianismthanthecontemporaryinterpretation:
Althoughthefavoredmeansofthetermnegativewelfarismastoicianlikecontrolofthe
birthofonesdesireswhichitalsocallsliberation(moksa)isinasenseopposedto
economistsconception,scholarlywelfarismisinfacthistoricallythedirectdescentofthis
Indianphilosophy.Indeed,the18thcenturyfoundersofutilitarianismwerethoroughly
inspiredbyStoicismandEpicureanism,whereastheinfluenceofBuddhistandJainthoughts
onStoicianandotherHellenisticphilosophiesisexplainedinthepreviousreference.The
oblivionofselfformationoccurredwiththatoftheRousseauKantautonomybysome
narrowmindedpostMill19thcenturyscholars(evenMillschoiceoflifestyleisa
downgradingoffulleudemonisticselfformation).Notethattheviewthatutilitarianismisthe
necessaryallencompassingcriterionwas,intheWest,restrictedtoEnglishlanguagescholars
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 14/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

influencedbyBenthamwhointroducedthisviewforapoliticalreason.ThisiswhyRawls
appearedtobemuchlessoriginalinothercircleswhoacknowledgedconstitutionalbasic
rightsandwhereegalitarianismwasafamiliarideal.(MacrojusticefromEqualLiberty,Serge
ChristophKolm)
AlsotheStoiccosmopolitanismcorrespondswelltoutilitarianism.Stoicism,incontrastto
Buddhism,wascharacterizedbyanoptimisticworldview.
Incontemporarynegativeutilitarianismwefindboth,optimisticandpessimisticvisionsofthe
futureseeHostilityandtheMinimizationofSuffering.


Popper
Inthe20thcentury,theideatoformulateanethicalgoalnegativelyisattributedtoKarl
Popper:
therearenoinstitutionalmeansofmakingamanhappy,butaclaimnottobemade
unhappy,whereitcanbeavoided.Thepiecemealengineerwill,accordingly,adoptthemethod
ofsearchingfor,andfightingagainst,thegreatestandmosturgentevilsofsociety,ratherthan
searchingfor,andfightingfor,itsgreatestultimategood[Popper,158]
Atthispointofchapter9,Popperaddedhiscontroversialnote2:
Ibelievethatthereis,fromtheethicalpointofview,nosymmetrybetweensufferingand
happiness,orbetweenpainandpleasure.Boththegreatesthappinessprincipleofthe
UtilitariansandKantsprinciplePromoteotherpeopleshappinessseemtome(atleastin
theirformulations)wrongonthispointwhich,however,isnotcompletelydecidableby
rationalargument().Inmyopinionhumansufferingmakesadirectmoralappeal,namely,
theappealforhelp,whilethereisnosimilarcalltoincreasethehappinessofamanwhois
doingwellanyway.
AfurthercriticismoftheUtilitarianformulaMaximizepleasureisthatitassumes,in
principle,acontinuouspleasurepainscalewhichallowsustotreatdegreesofpainasnegative
degreesofpleasure.But,fromthemoralpointofview,paincannotbeoutweighedbypleasure
andespeciallynotonemanspainbyanothermanspleasure.Insteadofthegreatesthappiness
forthegreatestnumber,oneshoulddemand,moremodestly,theleastamountofavoidable
sufferingforallandfurther,thatunavoidablesufferingsuchashungerintimesof
unavoidableshortageoffoodshouldbedistributedasequallyaspossible.
Thereissomeanalogybetweenthisviewofethicsandtheviewofscientificmethodology
whichIhaveadvocatedinmyTheLogicofScientificDiscovery.Itaddstoclarityinthefields
ofethics,ifweformulateourdemandsnegatively,i.e.ifwedemandtheeliminationof
sufferingratherthanthepromotionofhappiness.Similarly,itishelpfultoformulatethetask
ofscientificmethodastheeliminationoffalsetheories(fromthevarioustheoriestentatively
preferred)ratherthantheattainmentofestablishedtruths[Popper,284].

Poppersethicswasnotonlyinfluencedbyhisepistemologicalwork,butalsobypersonaland
historicalexperience:
1)ThefailureofhappinesspromotingphilosophieslikeclassicalutilitarianismandMarxism
2)SixteenofPoppersclosestrelativesbecamevictimsofNaziGermany,partiallyin
Auschwitz,somecommittedsuicide(fromDieErkenntnistheorieunddasProblemdes
Friedens)

Popperwasnotautilitariananddidnotusethetermnegativeutilitarianism.Hisnoteson
ethicsdontrepresentatheorytheyratherencourageafamilyofethicalconcepts[Fricke,13].
Inspiteofthat,hewasconfrontedwiththefollowingnarrow,utilitarianinterpretationofhis
notes:


R.N.Smart
ThetermnegativeutilitarianismwasintroducedbyR.N.SmartinapapercriticizingPoppers
approachtoethics:

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 15/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

.onemayreplytonegativeutilitarianism(hereaftercalledNUforshort)withthefollowing
example,whichisadmittedlyfanciful,thoughunfortunatelymuchlesssothanitmighthave
seemedinearliertimes.
Supposethatarulercontrolsaweaponcapableofinstantlyandpainlesslydestroyingthe
humanrace.Nowitisempiricallycertainthattherewouldbesomesufferingbeforeallthose
aliveonanyproposeddestructiondayweretodieinthenaturalcourseofevents.
Consequentlytheuseoftheweaponisboundtodiminishsuffering,andwouldbetherulers
dutyonNUgrounds().
AdmittedlymyexampledoesnotquiteworkasitstandsagainstProfessorPopperinasmuchas
hepropoundstwootherprinciplestosetalongsideNU,viz.(briefly)"Toleratethetolerant"
and"Notyranny".Presumablythebenevolentworldexplodermightbethoughtintolerant
and/ortyrannical()ifweallow"Toleratethetolerant"and"Notyranny"tostandas
principlesalongsideNU,therewillbeaconflictbetweenthemandNUregardingourexample.
IfwetakeNUseriously,surelyweshouldoverridetheotherprinciples(Negative
Utilitarianism)
ThereisnoindicationinPopperstextwhichsaysthattheminimizationofsufferingshould
overridetheotherprinciples.Onthecontrary,Poppersattitudewasantitotalitariananditis
muchmorelikelythathewouldhavepromotedhumanrightsasasideconstraintforany
attempttoimprovethestateofaffairs(seechapter3.5).



3.2Definition

Negativeutilitarianism(NU)isanumbrellatermforversionsofutilitarianismwhichmodel
theasymmetrybetweensufferingandhappiness[Fricke,14].Itvariouslyincludesconcepts
that
1.assignarelativeprioritytotheavoidanceofsuffering
2.assignanabsoluteprioritytotheavoidanceofsuffering
3.considernonexistencetobethebeststateofaffairs

Thereisnoconsistentusageoftermsinnegativeutilitarianism.WeusetheabbreviationNUas
anumbrellaterminthispaper,butsometimesitreferstothehistoricallyfirstversion,as
definedbyR.N.Smart(seeNegativeUtilitarianism).R.N.Smartsversionhasthefollowing
characteristics:
Itishedonistic(asopposedtopreferencebasedversions).
Itcompletelydeniesthemoralvalueofhappiness(seeThePinprickArgument)and
thereforecorrespondstothethirdofaboveconcepts.
RogerChaousesthetermclassicalnegativeutilitarianismforthisversion[Chao,58].

However,itturnedoutthatR.N.SmartmisinterpretedPoppersnotesonethics.Popperlater
clarifiedthatthecompletedevaluationofhappinesswouldhaveabsurdconsequencesandthat
hisnoteswereonlymeantforpublicpolicyandnotindividualaction.Inthefollowingwe
adoptthisviewandinvestigate
utilityfunctionsonthegroup/societylevelandnotutilityfunctionsontheindividuallevel
compensationacrossdifferentpersons(interpersonalcompensation)andnot
compensationwithinthesameperson(intrapersonalcompensation)
Inthiscontextthetermhappinessisasynonymforlifesatisfaction,wellbeingandgeneral
positivewelfare.
Thetermsufferingaccordinglystandsforuncompensatedsuffering[Fricke,18]andisa
synonymfornegativewellbeingandnegativewelfare.

Forintrapersonalcompensations/tradeoffs(WeakNU)seeWhyIm(Not)aNegative
Utilitarian.


RelativepriorityModernNU
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 16/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

Arelativepriorityof(theavoidanceof)sufferingmeansthathappinesshasmoralvalue,but
lessthansuffering.Themoralweightofsufferingcanbeincreasedbyusinga"compassionate"
metric,sothattheresultisthesameasinprioritarianism,seechapter3.3


AbsolutepriorityNegativetotalUtilitarianism
Theabsolutepriorityof(theavoidanceof)sufferingisknownunderthetermnegativetotal
utilitarianism[Arrhenius,100].Happinesshasnomoralvalue,aslongassufferingexists.In
the(unlikely)casethatsufferingcanbeeradicated,weneedaruleforhappiness[Fricke,14,
18].Sucharulecoulddeclarethepromotionofhappinesstobe
1.mandatory(LexicalThresholdNU)
2.supererogatory
3.neutral
Inthefollowingwewilldiscardnegativetotalutilitarianism,becauseitrepresentsaborder
caseofrelativepriority,wherethemoralweightofhappinessconvergestowardszero.
Absoluteprioritycanbeapproximatedbyrelativepriority.Relativepriorityisthegeneral
model.


NonexistenceasbeststateNegativepreferenceutilitarianism
Negativepreferenceutilitarianismisbasedonantifrustrationism,anaxiologywhichsaysthat
thesatisfactionofapreferenceisnotmorallybetterthanthenonexistenceofthispreference
[Fehige].
Antifrustrationismdoesnotprescribeamethodofaggregatingpreferences.But
preferenceshavetobeorderedotherwisethetheoryismeaningless[Broome1999,910].
Ifweassumethatthehighestorderpreferenceofhumanbehaviorislifesatisfactionthen
thetheorysaysthatthereareonlyliveswithnegativevalue[Stanford,chapter2.4].
Withautilitarianaggregationoflifesatisfactionacrossagroup/societythetheory
becomesnegativepreferenceutilitarianism[Fricke,20].
ApartfromitsaffinitywithBuddhism(chapter3.6)wewilldiscardthisversionofNU.The
assumptionthatnonexistenceisthebeststateofaffairsiscounterintuitiveformostnon
Buddhists.


Comparisonwithpositiveutilitarianism
Slogan:
TheclassicalutilitariansloganThegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber(Bentham)
emphasizesthemaximizationofhappiness
ItsnegativeutilitariancounterpartTheleastsufferingofthegreatestnumberemphasizes
theminimizationofsuffering.
Happinessissomethingwewantapositivegoal,sufferingissomethingwedonotwanta
negativegoal.Hencethetermnegative.
Negativeutilitarianismfightsdystopiasratherthanpromotingutopias.

Priorities
Inpositiveutilitarianismthepromotionofhappinesshasthesameethicalpriorityasthe
avoidanceofsuffering,aslongasthecontributiontototalwelfareisthesame.
In negative utilitarianism the promotion of happiness has less (or even no) priority as
comparedtotheavoidanceofsuffering.
However,ifethicalprioritiesareexpressedbythemetricofthehedonisticscale,thenthis
distinctionisquestionable,seechapter3.3.

Utility:
In(hedonistic)negativeutilitarianismthetermutilitycorrespondstotheavoidanceofsuffering
andisconsideredtobecardinallymeasurableandinterpersonallycomparable,aswellasin
(hedonistic)positiveutilitarianism.Example:
Ifpositiveutilitarianismmeasuresasocietiesutilityintermsoftheindexoflife
satisfaction,then
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 17/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

negativeutilitarianismreplacesthismeasurebyanindexfornegativewelfare,seechapter
3.4.

Costbenefit:
Inpositiveutilitarianismthemostefficientactionconsistsinsavingasmany(young)lives
aspossible.
Innegativeutilitarianismthemostefficientactionconsistsinreducingthenumberofworst
cases,evenatthecostofashrinkingpopulation.
FormoreinformationoncostbenefitseeNegativeUtilitarianPriorities.



3.3ModernNU


Definition
ThemodernNUisametricwithinmodernhedonisticutilitarianism,whichassignsahigher
weighttotheavoidanceofsufferingthantothepromotionofhappiness.Themoralweightof
sufferingcanbeincreasedbyusinga"compassionate"metric,sothattheresultisthesameas
inprioritarianism.
ModernhedonisticutilitarianismisassociatedwiththeworkofJohnBroomeinthispaper
[Broome].


Semantics
IfthemodernNUisonlyametricwithinmodernhedonisticutilitarianism:Whatisthe
reasonforusingaspecialtermforthismetric?
Thereasonisthatutilitarianismsimilartoprioritarianismisassociatedwithpositivetotals:
Inclassicalutilitarianismthehedonisticscaleislinearandsymmetric.Thetheorydoesnot
excludenegativetotals,butinpracticemostutilitariansassumethatgiventhecurrent
stateofaffairstotalwellbeingispositive.
ThemodernNUmaintainsthatsymmetricscalesareadistortionofreality.Thetheory
doesnotexcludepositivetotals,butitconsidersthatgiventhecurrentstateofaffairs
totalwellbeingmightbenegative.Theintuitionthatglobalsufferingcannotbe
compensatedbyhappinessturnsglobalwellbeingnegative,sothatthemaximizationof
happinessturnsintoaminimizationofsuffering.

Rationality
Intuitionswithregardtoglobalwellbeingarecontroversial:
Themajorityinparticularprioritariansandclassicalutilitariansthinkthatsevenbillion
happypeoplecanoutweightheextremesufferingofaminority.
Buddhists,Gnostics,Schopenhauer,Popperandmanyantinatalistsdonotsharethis
intuition.
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 18/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

Themajorityconsidersthelatterpeopletobehighlyriskaverseorevenirrational,but
possiblythemajoritiesperceptionofriskisdistorted.Therationalityofthenegative
utilitarianintuitionisinvestigatedinTheDenialoftheWorldfromanImpartialView.


Comparisonwithclassicalutilitarianism
Classicalutilitarianismassumesthatsufferingandhappinesshaveequalweight.Current
surveysonsubjectivelifesatisfactionexpressthisequalweightbysymmetricpointscales.
Letusassumetherewasasurveyonsubjectivewellbeing,askingthequestion:
Whatisyourwellbeingonthefollowingscale:Veryhappy,happy,neutral,suffering,severely
suffering?
Classicalutilitarianismtransformstheseordinalvaluesintocardinalvaluesasfollows:


Ordinal cardinal
veryhappy=max. +2
happy +1
neutral 0
suffering 1
severelysuffering=min. 2


TheModernNUsuggeststhatthehedonisticscaleisasymmetric.Thisthesisisjustifiedby
intuitionslikethefollowing:
Weshouldrealizethatfromthemoralpointofviewsufferingandhappinessmustnotbe
treatedassymmetricalthatistosay,thepromotionofhappinessisinanycasemuchless
urgentthantherenderingofhelptothosewhosuffer,andtheattempttopreventsuffering
[Popper,VolumeI,NotestoChapter5,Note6]
Itismoreimportanttorelievesufferingthantoincrease(alreadyhappypeoples)
happiness.Wecanretainthisimportantintuitionbygivingmoreweighttonegative
welfarethantopositivewelfare[Arrhenius,138]
Themoralvalueofanincreaseinwellbeingmattersmore,theworseoffpeopleare:

Ifthemajorityoftheparticipantsofasurveyreportapositivewellbeing,thenthetotalis
necessarilypositiveinclassicalutilitarianism.

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 19/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

IntheModernNUthetotalmayturnnegative,becauseofthehighermoralweightof
negativewellbeing.


ComparisonwithPrioritarianism
Theintuitionofanasymmetryisalsocharacteristicforprioritarianism,seeHostilityandthe
MinimizationofSuffering.PrioritarianismcoversthefunctionalityofthemodernNUand
viceversa:
Inprioritarianismthesymmetriccardinalvaluesinabovetablearemodifiedbyan
asymmetric(concave)weightingfunction.
Inmodernhedonisticutilitarianismtheasymmetrycanbeexpressedbythemetricofthe
hedonisticscale,i.e.thevaluesinabovetableareasymmetricinthefirstplace.
Fromatechnicalpointofviewprioritarianismmaybepreferable(becauseavailablesurveys
uselinearscales)butaccordingtoJohnBroomeutilitarianismhasabettertheoretical
foundation:
Prioritarianismisnotanadequatewaytounderstandfairness[Broome,39].
(Moral)betternessisrepresentedbytheunweightedtotalofpeopleswellbeing[Broome,
137].



3.4Implementation

Inordertocomparethewelfareofnationsonehastouseindices(averagelevelofnegative
welfare),sothatthepopulationsizedoesntmatter.Averageutilitarianismisthemostpopular
theoryamongwelfareeconomists[Arrhenius,53].


Subjectiveindices
AlmostallOECDcountriesnowcontainalifeevaluationona0to10ratingscale,usuallya
questionaboutlifesatisfaction[Helliwell,15].
Inotherwords:theOECDratingscalesarelinearanddonotknownegativevalues.
HowcantheModernNUbeimplemented?
OnepossibilityistodefineaNUindexwhichcompeteswiththeestablishedindicesoflife
satisfaction.
1)Definingasubjectivesufferingscalebyreversingthescaleofthelifesatisfactionindex
[Anderson,56]doesnotsolvetheproblem,becauseitallowscompensatingthe
minoritiessufferingwiththemajoritieshappiness(col.3inTable1).AlsoinAndersons
scalesufferingisexpressedineconomictermsandnotintermsoflifesatisfaction.
2)Thesignedlinearscale(col.4ofTable1)hastheadvantagethatthelifesatisfactionof
sufferingpeopleisexpressedbynegativenumbers.Thismakesintuitivelyclearthatthe
creationofadditionalliveswiththisqualityhastobemorallyjustified.Withsuchascale,
however,totalwelfareremainspositive.
3)TheNUscaleshouldbeconcave(seechapter3.3),sothatthesufferingoftheminority
cannoteasilybecompensatedbythehappinessofthemajority.Onepossibilityistouse
thesignedlinearscaleasinputargument(x)foranexponentialfunctionexp(x).This
conceptisfunctionallyequivalenttoprioritarianismseeHostilityandtheMinimizationof
Suffering.Ifitispossibletofindaconsensusforprogressivetax,itmayalsobepossible
despitethelimitednormativeforceofcompassiontofindaconsensusforaconcave
scale.


Table1:Scalesformeasuringwelfare

Subjective Description Subjective Signed
Life [Anderson] Suffering Linear
Satisfaction [Anderson]
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 20/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

10 happy 1 +5
9 2 +4
8 3 +3
7 4 +2
6 struggling 5 +1
5 6 0
4 suffering 7 1
3 8 2
2 9 3
1 10 4
0 11 5



Objectiveindices
Becausesubjectiveindicesincludeunavoidablekindsofsuffering(likeillnesses,agingand
death)acorrespondingrankingofnationscannotberelatedtotheethicalstandardofthese
nations.Objectiveindicesfocusonavoidablekindsofsuffering.TheInternationalHuman
SufferingIndexandAndersonsobjectivesufferingindex[Anderson,7]relyonthestatisticof
theWorldBank,UNandotherreadilyavailableresources.Theysuggestthatunderdeveloped
nationssuffermorethandevelopedones.
Objectiveindicesexcludenaturaldisastersinordertolimitthemeasuretopreventable
suffering[Anderson,8].
Objectiveindicesaccountforfactorsthatarecloselyrelatedtothedefinitionof
underdevelopment[Anderson,7].ThecorrelationwiththeHumanDevelopmentIndex
[Anderson,14]thereforedoesntcomeasasurprise.
Aboveobjectiveindicesdonotconsidertheambivalenceofprogressasinvestigatedin
TheCulturalEvolutionofSuffering(longtermcounterproductivemechanisms)
OnthePerceptionofRiskandBenefit(possibleselfdestructionofhumanity)

Insteadoffocusingonunderdevelopment,onecouldalsoconcentrateonarmedconflicts:
Possiblythehighestratesofnegativewelfare(perheadofpopulation)occurincountrieson
war,wheresurveysaredifficulttoconduct.
Ifthisthesisholds,thenthefollowinginformationcouldbeusedtoguideNUpriorities:

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 21/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

Thestrategytoreducetheincidenceofwarsischallengedbyseveralothers,claimingtohave
thebestefficiencyinthefightagainstsuffering.
FormoreinformationaboutthisissueseeNegativeUtilitarianPriorities.


http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 22/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

Subjectiveversusobjective
1)InHappinessEconomics,subjectivesufferingisrelatedtoobjectivedatabymeansof
factoranalysis[Oswald].Whereasaboveobjectiveindicesaredefinedbyexperts,factor
analysisletsthemajoritydecideaboutthedeterminantsofsuffering.Subjectivesuffering
accountsfortheambivalenceofprogress.
2)RonAndersonassessedamoderatelyhighcorrelationbetweenhissubjectiveandobjective
sufferingindex.Itseemsinparticularthatinhigherdevelopednationssubjectivesuffering
correlateslesswithobjectivesufferingthaninlowerdevelopednations[Anderson,11].
ThisisreminiscentoftheEasterlinparadox.


Moralkilling
ThemostcontroversialstrategyofNUisaviolentreductionofthepopulationsizeinorderto
improvethestateofaffairs[Fricke,18].Anextremepursuitofthisthoughtleadstothe
exterminationofhumanityorlifeasawhole[Smart]:
Anegativeutilitarianbelievesthat,ifitwaspossibletoexterminatealllifeintheuniverse
instantlyandpainlesslyandpermanently,itwouldbecorrectandethicallyrequiredthatwe
dosoinordertopreventanyfuturecasesofsuffering
Aclassicalutilitarianmightdecideeitherway,dependingonhisestimationoftherelative
amountsoffuturesufferingandhappiness.
(Introductiontoutilitarianism,utilitarian.org):
Thereis,however,anempiricalargumentagainstsuchastrategy:Planningaprojectforthe
violentreductionofthepopulationsize(e.g.bysterilization)wouldprovokeimmensedistress
andclassifythesupportersoftheprojectamongtheworstkindsofcriminals,terroristsand
lunatics.Aviolentexterminationofmankindisnotfeasibleinpractice.Theresultofsuchan
attemptwouldbeanincreaseinsufferingandthereforecontradicttheethicalgoalofNU.

Empiricalargumentsagainstmoralkillingarenotconvincingunderallcircumstances,but
similardeficienciescanbefoundinpositiveutilitarianismandprioritarianism,seethesection
aboutHumanrightsandthehigherpurposeinchapter3.5
ForinformationaboutthemoralidealofchildlessnessseeHostilityandtheMinimizationof
suffering.


Acceptance
Whateverthefutureholds,negativeutilitarianethicswillpresumablystillfailtoresonatewith
theoverwhelmingmajorityofthepopulationespeciallyafterouremotionalwellbeing
increasesastheadoptionofenhancementtechnologiesgatherspace.Soperhapsthemost
effectivewayforanegativeutilitariantopromotehis/herethicalvaluesisnottoproselytize
underthatlabelatall.Instead,thenegativeutilitarianmayfinditinstrumentallyrationalto
giveweightovertlytothe"positive"valuesofordinaryclassicalutilitarians,preference
utilitarians/preferenceconsequentialists,andthefarwidercommunityof(mostly)benevolent
nonutilitarianswhoshareanaversionto"unnecessary"suffering.Theindirectapproachto
NUislikelytoyieldthegreatestpayoff.Onlybyourstrivingtopromote"positive"goalsas
well,andcampaigningforgreaterindividualwellbeing,istheethicofNUeverlikelytobe
realizedinpractice(DirectversusIndirectNU,inThePinprickArgument,byDavidPearce)
Acceptancecanbeimproved,iftheNUindexisusedasadditionalinformation,challenging
(relativizing)establishedindices,butnotreplacingthem.Intheestablishedindices,theworst
casesofsufferingdisappearintheaverage,suggestingthattheycaneasilybecompensated.
TheNUindexstrengthenstheawarenessthatthesufferingminoritypays(inastatistical
sense)thepriceforthehappinessofthemajority.Itcanrevealcasesinparticular,wherethe
averageofallclassesimprovesandthesituationofthemostsufferingminorityworsens.
Example:
AsitwasnoticedbyIngleharttherelationbetweensuiciderateandsubjectivewellbeingisin
generalpositive:Suicideratetendstobehigherinthosenationsthatrankhighnotlowon
subjectivewellbeing.Inotherwords,theaveragelifesatisfactionseemstobepositively
correlatedwiththesuiciderate.()Thosecultureswheresuicideismostwidespreadhavethe
strongestnormsofdescribingoneselfashappy.Conceivably,beingdeeplyunhappyina
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 23/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

societywhereeverybodyisexpectedtobehappymaybeevenmoreunbearableandproducea
greatersenseofsocialisolationthanitwouldbeinasocietywheremiseryisnotsofarfrom
thenorm[Allik]



3.5ComparisonwithRawlsTheory

RawlsknewPoppersnormativeclaims[Rawls1958,174]andmayhavebeeninfluencedby
Popperswork:
1.ThelibertyprincipleisthebasisofanopensocietyasdefinedbyPopper.
2.ThedifferenceprincipletakesaccountofPoppersnotesontheasymmetrybetween
sufferingandhappiness.


Noncontractualcases
Philosophers,whotreatmoralityasprimarilycontractualtendtodiscussnoncontractual
casesbriefly,casuallyandparenthetically,asthoughtheywereratherrare.Thecontractarian
viewisthatthosewhofailtoclockinasnormalrationalagentsandmaketheircontractsare
justoccasionalexceptions,constitutingonemoreminoritygroup,butnotacentralconcernof
anysociety[Midgley]
Innegativeutilitarianismtheethicalgoaltominimizesufferingisguidedbycompassionand
riskaversion.Ascomparedtosocialcontracttheoryitseemstobebuiltonemotions.But
theseemotionsconformtothecontractorsselfinterestinthefollowingcases:
1)Everyhumanbeingpassesthroughstageswherehe/shedependsoncompassion.Thechild
spendsmanyyearsacquiringthecompetenceinspeechandconsciousnesswhichistypical
forhumans.Oldpeople,finally,losestepbysteptheirmentalcapabilities,inparticularby
strokesanddementia(e.g.Alzheimersdisease).
2)Onesownfuturechildrenorgrandchildrencouldbementallyretarded,insane,
handicappedorbecomeorphans.

Theprotectionofnoncontractualcasesgetssupportfromrecentdiscoveriesinbiology:
1)Selfinterestisstronglyinfluencedbythebiologicalutilityfunction,seeGodsUtility
Function.Theinsightthatthetemporaryandbiasedselfinterests(themotivesofself
realization)areintruththeonesofthebiologicalutilityfunctioncanleadtoafeelingof
beingmanipulated,totheconsciousnessofheteronomyandtosolidaritywiththevictims
ofbiologicalmechanisms.
2)InnegativeutilitarianismaswellasinBenthamsutilitarianism(chapter2.4)non
contractualcasesalsoincludesentientanimals,speciesismisdenied.Thisisreminiscentof
ancientconceptsorreincarnation,althoughgenesarereincarnatedratherthansouls.
Hinduismassumesthatthereisnoessentialdifferencebetweenhumansoulsandanimal
souls.Contemporarysciencerevealsthatsentientanimalshaveasurprisinggenetic
similaritytohumans.Example:Chimpanzeesandhumanshave99%ofcodingDNA
sequencesincommon(Humanzee,Wikipedia).


Moralkillinghumanrightsandthehigherpurpose
Therelationbetweenhumanrightsandnegativeutilitarianismiscomplex:
Humanrightsaretheresultofhistoricalexperiences(inparticulartheHolocaust).They
preventsomeoftheworstcasesofsufferingandinsofarservethenegativeutilitariangoal.
Thenagainnegativeutilitarianismcontradictshumanrights,becauseithasatotalitarian
claim.Fromatheoreticalpointofviewmoralkilling(eventheeradicationofhumanity)is
justifiedundercertaincircumstances[Smart].
Inthelattercase,humanrightsaresubordinatedunderahigherprinciple(theeradicationof
suffering).Butnotethatthissubordinationconcernsconsequentialismingeneral[Larmore,4]:
1)ThecapitalpunishmentintheU.S.illustratesthattheideaisnotfarfetched(TheU.S.
constitutionwasinfluencedbyclassicalutilitarianism).
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 24/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

2)Humanrightsmaybeviolatedinamoraldilemmacalledtortureofthemadbomber.
3)Theargumentsagainstmoralkillinginclassicalutilitarianismareonlyofempiricalnature.
Apositiveutilitariansurgeoncouldsacrificeanoldpatient(e.g.inthecontextoforgan
transplantation)inordertosavethelifeofayoungpatient,iftheresultisanetgainin
happiness,andifitwerepossibletodoitsecretly.Thereisevenamoralobligationto
eliminateliveswithnegativewelfare,ifitwerepossibletodoitpainlesslyandsecretly
[Chao,6061].
4)Classicalutilitarianism(maximizationofhappiness)turnsintonegativeutilitarianism
(minimizationofsuffering),iftotalwelfareturnsnegative.

Anattempttosolvetheproblemconsistsinswitchingtoapreferencebasedethics.In
preferencebasedethicsthepreferencesoftheindividualshavetoberespected,sothatthe
argumentsagainstpainlesskillingareoftheoreticalandnotonlyempiricalnature[Fricke,20]
[Chao,5759].However,inautilitarianpreferenceaggregation,thepreferencesofthe
majorityoverruletheonesoftheindividualandthemajoritycouldtheoreticallydecideto
exterminateaminority[Hare,121122].Adherentsofconsequentialism,whorecognizethe
totalitarianpotentialasaproblem,considerhumanrightsasasideconstraintandnotasa
subordinatedissue[Wolf,278][Nozick].Poppere.g.clarified,thattheminimizationof
sufferingisonlyoneofthreeprinciplesofethics[Popper,VolumeI,Notestochapter5,Note
6,255256]
1.Tolerancetowardall,whoarenotintolerantandwhodonotpropagateintolerance()
Thisimplies,especially,thatthemoraldecisionsofothersshouldbetreatedwithrespect,
aslongassuchdecisiondonotconflictwiththeprincipleoftolerance.
2.Therecognitionthatallmoralurgencyhasitsbasisintheurgencyofsufferingorpain.I
suggest,forthisreasontoreplacetheutilitarianformulaAimatthegreatestamountof
happinessforthegreatestnumberorbrieflyMaximizehappiness,bytheformulaThe
leastamountofavoidablesufferingforallorbrieflyMinimizesuffering.Suchasimple
formulacan,Ibelieve,bemadeonethefundamentalprinciples(admittedlynottheonly
one)ofpublicpolicy.(TheprincipleMaximizehappiness,incontrast,seemstobeaptto
produceabenevolentdictatorship)
3.Thefightagainsttyranny,orinotherwords,theattempttosafeguardtheotherprinciples
bytheinstitutionalmeansofalegislationratherbythebenevolenceofapersonspower.

Historyjustifiesadeepskepticismoppositetoethicaltheorieswhichpromiseimprovements
byrestrictinghumanrights.Amajortaskofhumanrightsistheprotectionofsubjective
values.Theminorityproblemisnotonlydisturbingintyrannyandfascism,butalsoin
democracies.Humanrightsguaranteethattheindividualcannotbesubordinatedtoahigher
purposeofanykind.Buttherebynegativeutilitarianismlosesitsoriginalcharacteristics.Ifthe
higherpurposeistheexterminationofsufferingthensideconstraintsmightmakeitimpossible
toeverreachthisgoal.Eveninaperfectlyfairpoliticalsystem,sufferingcouldbeimmense.
Thesufferingminorityhastoacceptthestateofaffairs,becausethehappymajorityacceptsit.
Mostpeoplebeginwiththepresumptionthatwemorallyoughttomaketheworldbetterwhen
wecan(Consequentialism,StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy)
Rawlswasconsciousoftheproblembyspeakingofjusticeasfairnessandadmittingthatthere
areothermeaningsofjustice.


Animalrightsandthehigherpurpose
AnimalrightsareinconflictwithbothRawlstheoryofjusticeandnegativeutilitarianism:
1)AnimalrightsconflictwithRawlstheory(humanrights)ifanimalsandhumanscompete
forresources
2)Animalrightsconflictwithnegativeutilitarianismincaseswhereaviolationofanimal
rightscouldreducetotalhumansuffering.

MoraldilemmascanonlybeavoidedbyretreatingfromlifelikeBuddhistmonks.Butnot
everyprobleminthecontextofanimalrightsisanethicaldilemma:
1.Slaughterhousesarenotpartofamoraldilemmabecauseavegetarianhumanpopulation
couldprogressaswell.
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 25/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

2.Animalexperimentsareonlypartofamoraldilemma,iftheycannotbereplacedbyother
researchmethods.


Thedifferenceprinciple
Theabsolutepriorityoftheworstcaseisapossibleinterpretationofthedifferenceprinciple
(chapter2.4),butinRawlstheorytheworstcasereferstoeconomicwelfare,whereasin
negativeutilitarianismitreferstolife(dis)satisfaction.

AccordingtoRawlsriskaversionfollowsfromtheideaoftheoriginalpositionandjustifies
thedifferenceprinciple.Butitishardtoseewhydistributivejusticeshouldberiskaverseand
humanrightsrisktolerant.Rawlsobviouslyconsideredhumanrightstoberiskaverse
consistentwiththedifferenceprinciple.Thisisplausibleinsofar,ashumanrightsprevent
someoftheworstcasesofsuffering(likethetorturingofoppositionmembersintotalitarian
systems).Butitisimplausibleinothercases:

Example:Ifacertainspeedlimitcauses2%or20%victimsayearisirrelevantinRawls
theory,aslongasitreflectsthewillofthemajority.Amoralprinciplewhichdemandstolower
thespeedlimitagainstthewillofthemajorityisconsideredtobetotalitarian.
Letusconsidersomejustificationsofrisktoleranceinthecontextofspeedlimits:
1.Sufferingbelongstolife.Riskbelongstoprogress.
Thisargumentdoesnotholdbecauselifeandprogressgoondespitealowerspeedlimit.
2.Afurtherrestrictingoflibertyrightsaskstoomuchfromthemajorityandinduces
counterproductiveresults.
Thisargumentdoesnotholdbecausetherearemanylawswhichdemandmoreselfcontrol
thanalowerspeedlimit.
3.Totoleratecertainkindssufferingincreasesthecompetitivenessofaculture.
Thisisprobablytheessenceofthematter.Roadtrafficisjustoneexampleofawhole
collectionofcruelcustomswithwinnersandlosers,customswhicharetoleratedbythe
majority.Theinjusticeconcernsthosewhobecomevictimsinspiteofdenyingthecustom.
Conclusion:InmanyareasoflifeRawlslibertyprincipleallowsapplyingHarsanyis(risk
neutral)utilitymaximization,althoughtheconceptoftheoriginalpositionarguesforthe
rationalityofriskaversion.




Weallhavethestrengthtoendure
themisfortuneofothers

LaRochefoucauld




Populationethics:
Weshallhavetomakeaseriousefforttopredictouractionseffectsonpopulation,andto
assignavaluetothoseeffects.Inmanycases,thefactorwetypicallyignorepopulationis
likelytoturnoutthemostimportantofall[Broome2005,411].
Thenumberoffuturepersonsexceedsbyfartheonesoftheactualgeneration:

1)Rawlstheoryisneutralwithregardtoexpansionandcontraction,aslongastheprinciple
ofintergenerationalimpartialityisrespected,i.e.aslongasthechangesdonot
disadvantageanactualorfuturegeneration.
2)Negativeutilitarianismconsiderspopulationethicsasameanstoimprovethequalityof
life.

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 26/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

Innegativeutilitarianismthefuturegenerations(asfarastheycanbeanalyzed)aretreatedlike
componentsofamultigenerationentity.Thismultigenerationentityissubjecttoarisk
averseprincipleinmuchthesamewayasasinglegenerationissubjecttothe(riskaverse)
differenceprinciple.Theactualgenerationthereforecanbemorallyobligedtomakesacrifices
accordingtothesamelogicasawealthysinglepersoncanbeobligedtoacceptaredistribution
ofwelfare.Possiblyasmallsacrificeoftheactualgenerationcouldimprovethesituationof
countlessfuturegenerations.InRawlstheorythereisnohigherpurposelikethetotalwelfare
acrossallgenerations.Theprincipleofintergenerationalimpartialityassignsthesamerights
toeachgeneration.

Example:Ifitwereknownthat(duetoanaturaldisaster)theworldcanonlynourishabillion
peopleafterthenextfivegenerationsthentheactualworldpopulation(ofabout7billion
people)wouldhavetobereduceddramatically.Buthowshouldtheresponsibilitybe
distributedamongthegenerations?
1.Thelogicofimpartialitywouldaskforthesameproportionalreductionineach
generation.Eachsinglegenerationisaminoritywithinthemultigenerationentity.The
argumentsinfavorofsuchaminorityarethesameastheonesinfavorofminorities
withinasinglegeneration.
2.Negativeutilitarianismtreatsamultigenerationentitylikeasinglepopulation.Itwould
burdenanoverproportionalresponsibilitytotheactualgeneration,becausethispolicy
reducestheaccumulatedsufferingacrossallgenerationsinquestion.



3.6ComparisonwithBuddhism


Similarities
IncontemporaryethicstheaxiologywhichcomesclosesttoBuddhismisnegative
utilitarianism[Keown,176].
TherearetwodifferentversionsofBuddhism,whichbothshareimportantintuitionswith
negativeutilitarianism:

1.Amoderateversion,whichconsidersnonexistencetobethelesserevil,seeNegative
UtilitarianismandBuddhistIntuition,pp.303306.
Themoderateversiondoesnotdenythatthesatisfactionofdesirescontributesto
happiness,butthe(assumed)probabilitiesforanentirelifeareinfavoroffrustrationat
leastwithintheconceptofreincarnation(i.e.withinamultigenerationview).

Withinsuchaworldviewitisrationaltoeliminatedesires,asfarastheprocessof
eliminationdoesnotproduceadditionalsuffering.Thecorrespondingguideisthe
EightfoldPath,i.e.aretreatorientedwayoflivingandmeditativeexercises.Meditation
leadstoanabsoluteabsenceoffrustration,astatewhichwasdescribedbytermslike
SunyataorNirwana:
SunyataistranslatedintoEnglishasemptiness,voidness,openness,spaciousness,
vacuity.InTheravadaBuddhism,suatoftenreferstothenotselfPli:anatta
(Sunyata,Wikipedia)
ThewordNirwanaliterallymeans"blownout"(asinacandle)andrefers,inthe
Buddhistcontext,totheblowingoutofthefiresofdesire,aversion,anddelusion,and
theimperturbablestillnessofmindacquiredthereafter(Nirwana,Wikipedia).
Bothtermscanbeassociatedifatallwithaneutralstateonthehedonisticscale(a
statewhichisgiventhevaluezeroinutilitarianism).Sinceutilitarianismassignsthesame
value(zero)tothenonsentientworld,themoderateversionofBuddhismcanbemapped
totheModernNU(appliedtoapessimisticscenario).Inaworld,wheresufferingwill
alwayssurpasshappiness,nonexistenceisarationaloption.

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 27/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

2.Aperfectionistversion,whichconsidersnonexistencetobeaperfectstate,seeNegative
UtilitarianismandBuddhistIntuition,pp.306309.
TheperfectionistversionisrelatedtotheBrahmanconcept.Itpostulatesthatthereisa
perfect,impersonalandspiritualformofexistence,whichrepresentstheultimateessence
ofmaterialphenomena.SentientbeingscomeoutoftheBrahmanandreturntoitafter
death.TheBrahmanconceptoriginatesinHinduismandwaslateradoptedbysomeforms
ofBuddhism[Fowler,34].InsofarastheBrahmanisdescribedasbliss[Raju,54,228]itis
justifiedtoassignitthemaximumvalueonthehedonisticscale(insteadofzero).Ifnon
existenceisassociatedwithperfecthappiness,thenahappylifeisnotmorallybetterthan
anunbornlife,aconsequencewhichremindsofNegativePreferenceUtilitarianism.
However,negativepreferenceutilitarianismassignsthevaluezerotononexistence,sothat
thehedonisticscalecontainsexclusivelynegativevalues.

Withinsuchaworldviewitisrationaltoeliminatedesires,aswellaswithinthemoderate
versionofBuddhismabove.Thepathtogoissimilar,butthegoalisaunionwiththe
Brahman,ratherthanajourneyintoabsolutenothingness.
InHinduismmeditationisdonetorealizeunionofone'sself,one'stman,withthe
omnipresentandnondualBrahman(Hinduism,Wikipedia).
SomeofBuddhasstatementsallowmaintainingthesearchforperfecthappiness(instead
ofneutrality):
.(highestlevelofmeditation)leadingtoastatewithneitherpleasurenorpain,whichthe
Buddhasaidisactuallyasubtleformofhappiness(moresublimethanptiandsukha)
...alsocalledaformofnonsensualhappiness(DhyanainBuddhism,Wikipedia)
Thecrucialquestionis,ifmeditativeperfection(thenonexistenceoftheego)allows
graspingacharacteristicofthenonsentientworld.AdherentsoftheHindutradition
believeitdoes,Buddhaabstainsfrommetaphysicalspeculations.

InbothversionstheBuddhistemphasisoncompassionandriskaversionhasthefollowing
consequences:
Theminimizationofnegativeaveragesisconsideredtobemorallybetterthanthe
minimizationofnegativetotals.Thequalityofnegativewelfareismoreimportantthanthe
quantityofnegativewelfare.NegativeaveragesavoidtheNegativeRepugnantConclusion
[Broome2004,213].
Ifsurveysmeasurewelfarewithpointscalesorpercentages,thenanasymmetricscalehas
tobeused(seechapter3.3),sothatthelowerlevelsofwelfaregetmoreweightwithinthe
average.


Differences
Despiteofcommonintuitions,thereareimportantdifferencesbetweenBuddhismandnegative
utilitarianism:
Buddhismdevelopedasophisticatedvirtueethics,whichisdefinedintheEightfoldPath.
Negativeutilitarianismisconsequentialismandnotvirtueethics.Moralbehaviorcanonly
bedefinedinconcretesituations.

Example:
Innegativeutilitarianismtheuseofviolenceislegitimated,ifthesufferingproducedis
smallerthanthesufferingprevented.Thisallowsthedevelopmentofajustwartheory.A
negativeutilitarianmaybemorallyobligedtoparticipateinajustwar.
Buddhismadherestotheprincipleofnonviolence,seeAhimsa.A(disputed)interpretation
ofthisprinciplegoesasfollows:
oStriveforaretreatorientedlife,whereconflictsareavoidedinthefirstplace(e.g.the
lifeinaSangha).
oIfyouliveinalaiccommunity,thendonotspecializeonkilling(i.e.donotchoose
militaryserviceasaprofession)
oUseviolenceonlyforselfdefense,ifallotheroptionsareexhausted.

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 28/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

ThetwoethicsconvergeifitcouldbeshownthatinthelongruntheEightfoldPathisthe
mostconsequentwaytominimizesuffering.



4.Conclusion


Negativeutilitarianism
Negativeutilitarianism(NU)isanumbrellatermforethicswhichmodelstheasymmetry
betweensufferingandhappiness[Fricke,14].Itincludesconceptsthat
assignarelativeprioritytotheavoidanceofsuffering
assignanabsoluteprioritytotheavoidanceofsuffering
considernonexistencetobethebeststateofaffairs

Inthispaperweinvestigatecompensationacrossdifferentpersons(interpersonal
compensation).Forcompensationwithinthesameperson(intrapersonalcompensation)see
WhyIm(Not)aNegativeUtilitarian.

1)Arelativepriorityof(theavoidanceof)sufferingmeansthathappinesshasmoralvalue,
butlessthansuffering.Themoralweightofsufferingcanbeincreasedbyusinga
"compassionate"metric,sothattheresultisthesameasinprioritarianism.Themore
weightisassignedtosuffering,themoredifficultitbecomestocompensatesufferingby
happiness.Theintuitionthatglobalsufferingcannotbecompensatedbyhappinessturns
globalwellbeingnegative,sothatthemaximizationofhappinessturnsintoa
minimizationofsuffering.TherationalityofthisintuitionisinvestigatedinTheDenialof
theWorldfromanImpartialView.

2)Absolutepriorityrepresentsabordercaseofrelativepriority,wherethemoralweightof
happinessconvergestowardszero.Absoluteprioritycanbeapproximatedbyrelative
priority.Relativepriorityisthegeneralmodel.

3)TheclaimthatnonexistenceisthebeststateofaffairsiscounterintuitiveformostNon
Buddhists.


Rawlstheoryversusnegativeutilitarianism
1)Priorityofhumanrights:
a)Innegativeutilitarianismitistheoreticallypossibletooverridehumanrights,ifit
servestheminimizationofnegativetotalwelfare.
b)InRawlsTheoryofJusticeitisimpossibletooverridehumanrights,evenifthis
principlecausestheperpetuationofsuffering.

2)Distributionofwelfareamongsocialclasses:
Rawlsdifferenceprincipleaccordswellwiththeintentionsofnegativeutilitarianism,if
thetermwelfareisinterpretedaslifesatisfaction.

3)Compensationamonggenerations:
a)Innegativeutilitarianismagenerationmaybeobligedtosacrificethemselves,ifit
servesthelongtermreductionofsuffering.
b)InRawlstheorytheideaofasacrificeispreventedbytheprincipleof
intergenerationalimpartiality.

4)FromanegativeutilitarianperspectivethemosturgentamendmentstoRawlstheoryare
thefollowing:
a)Aprinciplefortheprotectionofnoncontractualcases(includingsentientanimals)
b)Ariskaversepopulationpolicy
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 29/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

c)Ariskaverseprinciplefortechnologicalprogress.




References

1.AllikJriandAnuRealo(1997),PsychologicalandCulturalMechanismsofSuicide,in
Trames,Vol.4,TallinnPedagogicalUniversity
2.AndersonRon(2012),HumanSufferingandMeasuresofHumanProgress,Presentation
foraRC55SessionoftheInternationalSociologicalAssociationForuminBuenosAires,
Argentina
3.ArrheniusGustav(2000),FutureGenerations,AChallengeforMoralTheory,FDDiss.,
UppsalaUniversity,Dept.ofPhilosophy,Uppsala:UniversityPrinters
4.Bentham,J.,ValueofaPainorPleasure(1778),in:B.Parekh(ed.):BenthamsPolitical
Thought,London1973
5.BroomeJohn(1991),WeighingGoods,Oxford:BasilBlackwell
6.BroomeJohn(1999),EthicsoutofEconomics,CambridgeUniversityPress,UK
7.BroomeJohn(2004),WeighingLives,OxfordUniversityPress
8.BroomeJohn(2005),ShouldWeValuePopulation?,TheJournalofPoliticalPhilosophy,
Vol.13,No.4,pp.399413
9.BroomeJohn(2008),TheEthicsofClimateChange,ScientificAmerican,NewYork,June
issue
10.ChaoRoger(2012),NegativeAveragePreferenceUtilitarianism,JournalofPhilosophyof
Life,Vol.2,No.1,p.5566
11.ClarenbachLarsAlbert(1999),DieWohlfahrtstheorieaufderGrundlagekardinaler
MessbarkeitundinterpersonellerVergleichbarkeitvonNutzen,Diplomarbeit,Kln
12.DworkinRonald(1977),TakingRightsSeriously,HarvardUniversityPress
13.Everett,DanielL.(2008),Don'tSleep,thereareSnakes,PantheonBooks
14.FehigeChristoph(1998),AParetoPrincipleforPossiblePeople,inC.FehigeandU.
Wessels,eds.,Preferences,Berlin:WalterdeGruyter
15.FowlerMerv,1999,Buddhism:BeliefsandPractices,SussexAcademic,Brighton
16.FrickeFabian(2002),VerschiedeneVersionendesnegativenUtilitarismus,Kriterion
Nr.15,pp.1327
17.Harsanyi,JohnC.(1955):CardinalWelfare,IndividualisticEthics,andInterpersonal
ComparisonsofUtility.In:JournalofPoliticalEconomy63.Pp.309321.
18.HarsanyiJohnC.(1975),CantheMaximinPrincipleServeasaBasisforMorality?A
CritiqueofJohnRawlsTheory,AmericanPoliticalScienceReview69:594606.
19.HareRichardMervyn(1976),EthicalTheoryandUtilitarianism,ContemporaryBritish
Philosophy,H.D.LewisEd.
20.Helliwell,John,RichardLayard,andJeffreySachs,eds.(2015),WorldHappinessReport.
NewNork,TheEarthInstitute,ColumbiaUniversityPress.
21.HirataJohannes(2004),HappinessandEconomics
22.Keown,Damien(1992),TheNatureofBuddhistEthics,NewYork,Palgrave.
23.KleinewefersHenner(2008),EinfhrungindieWohlfahrtskonomie,VerlagW.
Kohlhammer,Stuttgart
24.KolmSergeChristoph(1982),HappinessFreedom,DeepBuddhismandModernity,
PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,Paris
25.LarmoreCharles(2010),VernunftundSubjektivitt,FrankfurterVorlesungen,Zrcher
Version
26.LumerChristoph(2005),PrioritarianWelfareFunctions,inDanielSchoch(ed.):
DemocracyandWelfare,Paderborn:Mentis
27.MidgleyMary(1994),Dutiesconcerningislands,anEssayinEthics,editedbyPeter
Singer,OxfordUniversityPress
28.NozickRobert(1994),TheRationalityofSideConstraints,inEthics,editedbyPeter
Singer,OxfordUniversityPress
29.OswaldAndrew(1999),ANonTechnicalIntroductiontotheEconomicsofHappiness
http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 30/31
2/3/2017 NegativeUtilitarianismandJustice

30.ParfitDerek(1984),ReasonsandPersons,ClarendonPress,Oxford
31.PopperKarlR.(1945)TheOpenSocietyanditsEnemies,VolumeI,London,FifthEdition
(revised),Routledge,UK,1966
32.Raju,P.T.,1992,PhilosophicalTraditionsofIndia,MotilalBanarsidassPublishers,Delhi
33.RawlsJohn(1958),JusticeasFairness,inPhilosophicalReview67,pp.164194
34.RawlsJohn(1971),ATheoryofJustice,BelknapPublishers,Cambridge
35.RawlsJohn(2007),LecturesontheHistoryofPoliticalPhilosophy,Cambridge,
Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,editedbySamuelFreeman.
36.ScarreGeoffrey(1996),Utilitarianism,London
37.SchefczykMichael(2010),DerNutzenderFreiheit,inNeueZrcherZeitungNr.12,S.69
38.SmartJ.J.C.(1973),AnOutlineofaSystemofUtilitarianEthics,inJ.J.C.Smartand
BernardWilliams,Utilitarianism:ForandAgainst,Cambridge
39.StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(2006),TheRepugnantConclusion
40.TemkinLarry(1994),WeighingGoods:SomeQuestionsandComments,Philosophyand
PublicAffairs23,no.4,pp.350380.
41.VukomanovicMilan(1998),SchopenhauerandWittgenstein:AssessingtheBuddhist
Influences,UniversityofBelgrade
42.WolfClark(2004),Repugnance,WhereisThySting?inTheRepugnantConclusion,
EssaysonPopulationEthics,KluwerAcademicPublishers

http://www.socrethics.com/Folder2/Justice.htm 31/31