Fine-line boundaries in Utilitarianism and Libertarianism
To understand the impact of both Utilitarianism and Libertarianism, as philosophical
approaches within their own framework, one has to grasp the complexity of “Natural
Rights”i. Plain language this states that these comprise rights that can – under no
circumstances – be denied to any individual. It is not hard to define what governments are
currently in breach with these “Natural Rights” and how difficult it is to apply the
fundamental rights globally at the moment that we speak.
Where we weigh the meaning of natural rights in the context of natural law, opposed to
man-made positive law, we must also consider the impact of the restrictions posed in terms
of negative moral rightsii.
The example given during the lectures is the arguments in relation to Michael Jordan; the
fact that (a) he may or may not be allowed to retire (autonomous decision-do we own
ourselves?), and (b) the imposed governmental rule for him to pay taxes (involuntary
imposition-taxed labour=slave labour).
Arguments are presented from the Utilitarian point of view which – by majority rule – let’s
leave out Government interference for the time being – enables the majority to enjoy
Michael Jordan’s talent for a longer period of time if he is not allowed to retire when he
himself would like to, constitutes a denial of MJ’s fundamental natural rights on two clearly
stipulated counts (liberty and pursuit of happiness).
In case the Government would intervene – by honouring the majority rule – one needs to
question the basic motive of the government to do so; by measure of force could it be
determined that the main interest in doing so the “majority rule” will be observed, or could
it be that by allowing MJ to retire the Government will lose out a significant amount in taxes
(from MJ as income tax), plus the added monetary value in losing out on box office
revenues? In viewing these topics combined, one can conclude that the motives that lie
underneath the desire to intervene from the Governments side are far from “just”, nor can
they be regarded as altruistic! As insignificant this two-caps example may seem, it does
point toward the tendency that governments generally have double agendas, and we as
voters in a democratic system, should not overlook this.
Another angle that needs to be examined is the extent to which MJ would agree to
postpone his retirement and the compromises he would be willing to make (consent) in
order to determine how valid the statement is that he would expose himself to inverted
slavery.
It is evident that paying taxes does not happen on voluntary basis and is in conflict with
principles of Libertarianism – the individual rights prevail, also in the determination where
the earnings should be spent on – however, one can argue that the country of residence
(domicile) of that individual has basic rights on the property (land) where this individual
chooses to reside. By analogy this right on property is the oldest form of legalisation that is
known from Roman and Napoleonic Law onwards, and was ultimately designed to protect
the interests of the upper, c.q. ruling classes. In fact, it would be more accurate to look at
the original intention for which Law/Legislations were actually established than to deviate
too much from that original motive or purpose.
In this context, I would suggest that our moral ethics, when it comes to Justice, fairness and
the balance between the two, should be considered against the light of developments of
our own interpretation on how Justice should be applied; it has come a long way from its
original purpose and had nothing to do with equal distribution of wealth originally – on the
contrary, it was designed to keep the poor man in his place and justified his labour to be put
to use for the advantage of the rich; ergo enslavement.
Turning back on the issue of property and who owns it; doesn’t the state own the land we
reside in (who owns the UK? The Royal Family?) and again by analogy it is commonly
accepted that those who do not own the land, pay taxes for the use of the land. Jumping
ahead; what is so different in MJ’s situation in having to fulfil his duty to pay taxes – doesn’t
he live in the US and – by analogy, the state owns the land he resides in – he is in that
respect not treated as a VIP, not discriminated by race, colour or religion and consequently
treated fairly, even though he may well disagree with the latter! That he needs to pay
proportionally more than someone holding a job at Starbucks is a decision that the State has
taken, and I can assume that was done with the consensus of the parliament, i.e. majority
rule.
Whilst it should be appreciated to view government intervention from the moral ethical
implications it holds, there are – as usual – pro’s and cons in relation to keeping a hard-lined
attitude on either side of the fence! In participating and contributing to a national taxation
system one also benefits from the various amenities instigated and maintained by the
government and for the communal good. Roads, railways, streetlights, distribution of gas
and fuel logistics, ambulance and fire brigade personnel, security facilities to name but a
few. Those community services need to be maintained and that implies costs.... and in
sharing those costs, in the Utilitarianism approach is making the majority happy whilst
according to Libertarianism this would infringe on their autonomous choice and decision.
Now this is where the real problem lies; who are those who would rather choose to be
governed by libertarianism or who are governed, even without them being aware of such an
identity, rather think along the lines of Utilitarianism?
Knowing human nature as I do, I think I am not unjust to assess the following based on my
experience; people will choose the option that will best suit their wallet and will not overly
tax their overburdened agendas when it comes to active participation. From both angles, it
will become clear that when it comes to paying for services one takes for granted, there is
no real desire to pay more than is strictly necessary, even though these services are heavily
subsidised and covered by government expenditure. Can we really rely on the social
conscience of the average Libertarian to adjust the amount he/she needs to pay in income
tax to cover the difference in spending capacity for his/her fellow human being on a
voluntary basis? Do we foresee a system whereby Utilitarianists would volunteer to
subscribe to provide maintenance services for municipal buildings in their spare time,
sustaining their conviction in achieving an ultimate level of happiness for all?
If we take the examples of the trolley car, it is clear that the immediate and primary
response would be; save many instead of the individual (U), but to sacrifice the fat man to
safe another individual life would not only constitute murder, but also infringe the natural
rights of the fat man (L). What then if the fat man decides to sacrifice his life and jump over
the railing of the bridge; in terms of the Utilitarianism view this would be barely acceptable
as the consensus of the majority would regard this as suicide and that can never be
condoned based on the majority rule and opinion of religious believes. However, when you
ask the Libertarianism’s opinion, the fat man would be totally entitled to choose to sacrifice
his life, more so they would not only accept this as a autonomous right, but would support
this act in view of their firm conviction on the right to govern one’s own life, to do as one
pleases with it.
When we view the consequences of taking the Libertarianism view on matters like organ
donation and putting these for sale on the open market, one is faced with a number of
moral issues that are not so easily categorised in either of these approaches. True, the
totally convinced Libertarianism will certainly not oppose decisions of the individual to put
vital organs on the free market in order to obtain funds by selling them to the highest
bidder, but if we consider that at this very moment this kind of commercial trade is already
happening in various parts of the world where there is a lack of regular resources, such as
the third world countries. This trend confirms the underlying conviction that in certain parts
of the world the value of human life is low, and so the devaluation is apparently permissible.
Organised crime from the Eastern block regions of Europe are already setting up rings to
trade in organs and disadvantaged victims are being sought, murdered, and butchered to
fulfil the “supply and demand” of our economic and materialistic system.
Taking this a step further – and I am not even considering the question of “adult consent”
here – we can assess that the worth of a life is measured by the economic value of a
particular part of the world, the largeness of its population and the willingness and
ruthlessness of parties that engage in such activities. Would you imagine for a moment that
the conditions in which these “operations” to retrieve the vital organs, are often not optimal
and do not safeguard the “health-protocols” needed for such an operation? Would you then
also consider that whoever is going to receive these vital organs after transplant could very
well die because of the lack of medical care taken in the country where these organs were
taken from, and that large sums of money exchanged hands with the risk of killing two
people in the process.
Before we look at the topic of assisted suicide, as the controversy seems to focus on the
example in the Netherlands, let’s take a closer look at the reason why the Dutch
Government has decided on a number of controversial issues that seem to emerge as a
moral impediment.
The Netherlands has been heavily criticised previously in implementing a “Condoning
Policy” towards soft drug policies iii. One has to consider the fact that geographically the
Netherlands is a “passing through” country, tons of goods – by road, ship and railway – are
transported from the West to the East part of the country and Rotterdam and Amsterdam
are the big centres of commerce that bring a vast amount of supplies to either Southern or
Eastern regions of Europe. This lenient way of accepting soft-drug commerce within its
tolerance policies is one method to combat illegal drug trafficking. The Dutch Government
decided that the importance of exercising some measure of control over the quality of the
drugs could only be achieved if there would be legislation that would allow the consumer to
buy their soft drugs in licensed “koffie-shops”, by now they are world famous and according
to the latest reports America has copied this phenomenon. By licensing these locations and
putting them and the products they sell under government control, the rate of drug related
casualties, the number of drug addict related crimes have decreased considerably. Dealers
that do not operate under these rules are easier detected and drug trafficking is more
successfully combated as the incorporated monitoring system can rule out “fake alerts”.
Another example is the “Condoning Policy” towards prostitutioniv. I will refrain from any
moral judgement on the phenomena of prostitution as we need to acknowledge that this is
the oldest profession in the world. Again, because of its geographical characteristics the
most famous district is located in Amsterdam, known as the Red Light district. With the
expansion of the European Union the opening of the borders (Schengen) on the East side of
the Netherlands an increased migration was detected of young women, lured by the illusion
of riches in the West to find their fortune. Needless to say they were assisted by parties,
who promised them proper jobs – boutiques, fashion modelling etc. – to find themselves
robbed of their identity papers, often under threat of their lives and sometimes forces to
use hard drugs to make them “more amenable” to do their tasks. By implementing
legislation that stipulated registration with the social services, the local government
ensured; identities, regular health checks, controlled use of condoms. In this relative “safe”
environment the young women also found a place of refuge should their “owners” become
violent and monitoring potential human trafficking activities resulted in the arrest of the
criminal organisations involved.
Both of the examples do not fit in the idea of Utilitarianism, at least, not openly; they do not
represent the happiness of the majority and they do not contribute to established and
permitted activities(-)! Do they fit into the framework of Libertarianism then; no. Despite
the fact that some individuals will be kept from harming themselves, the individual – so it
reasons – does not need to be protected from their own actions, they should take
responsibility for themselves and the Government is not justified to intervene; an apt and
frequently used expression “not my problem”, seems justified and would appear oh, so
sensible .... What do we do in case of minors then? How do we position ourselves in case of
high school students buying messed up soft drugs, XTC and opiates from random dealers?
How do we view child prostitution; boys and girls – as we see in third world countries? How
would we feel when that would happen openly, on our doorsteps in our well ordered,
structured Society?
Don’t we all rather avoid matters that come too close for comfort and to our liking; how
gracefully do we accept aging and the deterioration of our bodies. Why else is there such a
lively commercial activity in preserving our (good) looks; we spend billions in making sure
our age won’t show and we cannot abide the idea of being anything less than attractive to
standards that are imposed on us. To allow ourselves to think of our own demise and the
inevitable ending in a painful and prolonged way, is still one of the great taboos on life; how
strange, as it is the only certainty we have, in comparison all else is just a vague illusion. Our
compulsive need to explain matters beyond our control just points to the fact that we are
not able to control the one thing we should cherish the most; our lives and what it boils
down to; undefined fears seem to incapacitate us to take full responsibility.
Imagine a decision of an individual to withhold certain diagnostic information from his near
and dear ones, because time is limited and the quality of that time outweighs the horrors of
hospitalisation; is that considered suicide? Should - in case of a termination of a pregnancy,
whereby the foetus is diagnosed with spina bifida - the mother be taken to Court for murder
– or should her physician defend him/herself as an accomplice? Surely, both these examples
are far less gruesome than the ones were presented in the previous cases of the doctor
having to decide whom to operate on first, or whether it would be permissible to take the
life and organs of a healthy patient coming for a check-up to save the life of five other
patients on the verge of dying?
The controversyv of incorporating legislation like assistance in suicide (Euthanasia) will
continue as long as we will be ruled by conventions that dictate that it is considered to be a
deadly sin and will result in condemnation to go to hell. It is regarded as a direct assault on
the gift of life itself and insulting the being that we believe to have given life in the first
place. Although politics and religion are distinctly separated in our society, we cannot
escape the spiritual, c.q. moral burden that comes with the decision to act against a moral
code by which society expects us to abide. Despite its endeavours and intentions
Libertarianism won’t alleviate that moral burden from the individual. From the
Utilitarianism’s point of view, the suffering individual needs to put the interests and
happiness of others before the endurance of pain and suffering of him/herself, but denies
also the suffering of the witnesses surrounding the individual in the final death struggle.
Clearly, there can be no win/win solution and ultimately there is no black or white, just
nuances of grey.
Although the world can be outraged by certain provisions the Dutch Government has made
in terms of Euthanasia, the above needs to be taken into consideration, as it ultimately
expresses a certain amount of hypocrisy. How can we spend millions on the cosmetic
industry (plus its cruelty to animals in the experimental stages) and allow free market
enterprise for donors of organs at the expense of those who are in need of their primary
existence or enabling their children to follow a proper education. How can we find it
perfectly regular to contemplate a ‘nose-job’ or a facelift to embellish ourselves to meet
today’s standards in terms of ‘looking good’ whilst not so many miles away someone dies
for lack of good medication? Obviously taxation and governmental interference like on an
individual’s wealth in our example of MJ has not been able to change the real issues our
world has to deal with. Apparently we don’t really want to give that our priority, because.....
couldn’t this have been achieved by now if we would take our place as true Utilitarianists?
Then, what is the basic motivation that we feel there is an ultimate need to do the Right
Thing; where does this notion of Justice and moral ethics stem from? Is it, like Descartes
states that the existence of God – who is so perfect – instilled this notion within us, that we
cannot deny his presence in our existence? Well, perhaps these are the wrong questions.
Perhaps we should be asking; what does Justice constitute, what motivates us to want to
strive for a society that professes to incorporate Justice, but not when it is getting in the way
of what we want to achieve in terms of economic growth, stability of nations and even
armed conflict.
Viewed from a broader perspective, perhaps we should return to the basic blue print we
inherited from Descartes which encourages us to introspection and reflect on the intuitive
knowledge what is Right and what is Wrong. Perhaps it is a matter of developing that
specific disposition which lies dormant but is awakened the moment we feel compelled to
react when something atrociously unjust happens by mere instinct. What we definitely
have to make our own is the challenge that Immanuel Kant throws at us, to pick up the
gauntlet: “Sapere Aude” (Dare to Know, i.e. THINK). Those two elements combined can
achieve instilled awareness by determining our actions and establishing equilibrium in how
to do the Right Thing. General Appeals derived from this angle will not fall on deaf ears, but
will be able to lift human kind to a higher level of moral consciousness and can be taken on
board as a valid code of conduct by Utilitarianists and Libertarianists alike.
The obligation therefore, lies in the need to distinguish, examine and determine our own
position, as well as our motives that moral ethics should be based on; inter alia in the field
of justice, striving to identify our motivation in life down to the very essence of being.
From a personal perspective and observing what happens in our direct environment as well
as beyond, I look towards the future with trepidation, but will rely on my intention to lead
the Aristotle way of life. By taking responsibility for my own actions my endeavours to
succeed are set by example through sharing what I have experienced and gained by
knowledge and self accomplishment. In my view we can only hope to change the world if,
and only if we all acknowledge that we should start with examining our own mindset and
motives if we really want a world where Justice prevails.
A.M. Draijer-de Jong
Introduction to Philosophy-Edinburgh/Know Thyself-Virginia/Justice-Harvard
Delft, 04.04.2013
i
natural rights 1. General: Fundamental human rights based on universal natural law, as opposed to those based on man-made positive law. Although there is no unanimity as to which
right is natural and which is not, the widely held view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and without any regard to age, gender, nationality,
or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness') which cannot be abrogated or interfered with by any government. And that, whether
or not these rights are enshrined in a national legal code, no government is lawful if it fails to upholds them. See also human rights. 2. Property law: Rights that automatically accrue to a
land owner, such as the right to enjoy the owned piece of land (including trees and fruits on it, and water flowing through it) in peace and without interference. See also natural justice
and natural law. (source Business Dictionary)
Natural Rights: The members of the Continental Congress made only two minor changes in the opening paragraphs of Jefferson's draft declaration. In these two paragraphs, Jefferson
developed some key ideas: "all men are created equal," "inalienable rights," "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Where did Jefferson get these ideas? Jefferson was a man of the
Enlightenment. This was the period during the 17th and 18th centuries when thinkers turned to reason and science to explain both the physical universe and human behavior. Those like
Jefferson thought that by discovering the "laws of nature" humanity could be improved. Jefferson did not invent the ideas that he used to justify the American Revolution. He himself
said that he had adopted the "harmonizing sentiments of the day." These ideas were, so to speak, "in the air" at the time. As a man of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was well acquainted
with British history and political philosophy. He also had read the statements of independence drafted by Virginia and other colonies as well as the writings of fellow revolutionaries like
Tom Paine and George Mason. In composing the declaration, Jefferson followed the format of the English Declaration of Rights, written after the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Most
scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his Second
Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England's Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II. Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are
born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are
"life, liberty, and property." Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right
and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason. Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make
choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching. By "property," Locke
meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self,
which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity
as well as the duty to help those in want. The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the
people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train
of abuses" over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system. Jefferson adopted John Locke's theory of
natural rights to provide a reason for revolution. He then went on to offer proof that revolution was necessary in 1776 to end King George's tyranny over the colonists. (source:
Constitutional Rights Foundation)
ii
“a moral right involves a liberty and an associated constraint on other people. I have the moral liberty to walk on the street, that means (a) I am morally at liberty to walk on the street
(it’s not morally forbidden that I do this) and (b) others are bound not to interfere in certain ways with my walking ont he street. (The specific content of the right is fixed by filling in the
“certain ways)”. (source: Introduction To Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia)
iii
http://www.government.nl/issues/alcohol-and-drugs/drugs/soft-drug-policy
iv
http://www.minbuza.nl/binaries/content/assets/minbuza/en/import/en/you_and_the_netherlands/about_the_netherlands/ethical_issues/faq-prostitutie-pdf--engels.pdf-2012.pdf
v
http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/2/326.full.pdf