The morality of equality
Posted by John Humphreys on June 17, 2009
I think there are only two absolute moral “goods” — utility and freedom.
My reasoning was that there were only two scales on which “good” could be determined — on the outcome or on the process. Regarding outcome, I consider “utility” to simply mean “what you want” by definition. So saying that people want to maximise utility is a tautological truism. Regarding process, the only options are either violent/involuntary or peaceful/voluntary, and I consider “peace better than violence” to be axiomatically true.
Axiomatically true, yes, but I also have some reasons which goes into metaphysics. It has to do with the meaning of being a “moral being”, linked to the perception of (if not the actual existence of) free-will, and the need for peaceful interaction to give meaning to the existence of free-will. But whether my metaphysical reasoning is accepted or not, I think “utility better than disutility” and “peace better than violence” are axioms that would have general support.
How then can we find another moral good, as some people claim exists with “equality”? I can’t see it. I have to ask “why do you think equality is a good thing?” and the answer will inevitably link back to utility.
Sure, equality can be a good thing. So can be chinese food, new shoes, tennis lessons and many other things in life. But they are not “absolute goods” in a moral sense. They are just things that can be good (or not) based on the fact that people want them.
Afe said
I like cheese.
Strawman said
I find this article a bit confused, John.
You say that utility can only be reasonably defined as ‘what you want’ (‘expressed preference’ I believe is the economist’s term).
But tell me, what is freedom? Isn’t it ‘what you want’? (or at least something similar?)
On bovination.com I define freedom as ‘the state in which others cannot initiate force against you’. Hence universal freedom is the same as universal utility EXCEPT that universal freedom is non-coercive – whereas utility may be.
And here we see the ideological divide between the libertarian and the rational (or should that be rationalizing?) leftist. The leftist sees instances where coercion can improve net utility. Everywhere. And hence believes that the mechanism for using that force (government) should grow and grow.
You are right that many leftists simply see benefit in equality for the sake of equality, but those arguments are easily defeated. It is the leftist utilitarian arguments that are hard to defeat.
.. and another thing: the argument that ‘peace is better than violence’ is rubbish. Slaves may be at peace with their masters.
A relatively free society with limited violence is better than a peaceful slave society.
Wife calling .. must go.
John Humphreys said
means (freedom) v ends (utility)
They can be consistent (and libertarians often think they are) or they might conflict (and interventionists think they often do).
Freedom may not lead to utility because you might freely make a mistake. Well, perhaps not you or I… but some people.
A slave is only a slave because of threat of violence. I used “violence” instead of “violence, coercion, fraud and breach of contract” because the word “violence” is shorter and I hoped people would understand the general meaning.
Mick Sutcliffe said
I think there are only two absolute moral “goods” — utility and freedom.
Wow, quite insightful – I rate it. This is a devolution of ‘the only yardstick of value is a man’s life’, but I think it’s a very important devolution that is not brought out explicitly often enough. Specifically, what improves the value of man’s life to himself – and it’s two things: utility and freedom.
However, I think the definition of utility as ‘what you want’ is only half the story. Utility is something that will improve your life whether you know it or not, freedom is what you choose to do. Now, as an objectivist, I’d say the differentiation between these definitions occur when human values are messed up, otherwise they align.
John Humphreys said
I agree Michael… by definition of “utility” was sloppy. Somebody picked that up in the facebook discussion too. A better definition would be utility is what makes your life better. Another reason for utility and freedom not aligning is people simply making a mistake. Not you or I of course. Other people.