----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 8:50 PM Subject: Re: Sociology and Explanations (Re: Hitchens responds to critics From
>
> Isn't it more likely that those who fail to promote the general
> >welfare do so not out of any mistaken illusions (though they're certainly
> >common enough) about what composes the greatest good but rather because
> >they're pursuing their own self-interests or the interests of some sect
to
> >which they belong? Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I think it's
> >reasonable to assume that unintended consequences balance out over the
long
> >run.
> >
>
> Not everyone is a utilitarian, Luke. Some people might think that the
> greatest good of the greatest number involved injustice, for example,
> because it led to less freedom than there might otherwise be. Or less
Islam,
> or less Christianity, whatever--nit because they belonged to those sects
but
> because they thought that they had the true religion. jks
Yep. I hoped no one was going to call me on that, and, if not for your presence at the moment, it probably would've. I assumed utilitarian principles not because I am one (although that happens to be the case) but because it provides a simple ethical case study to examine the wonderfully counterintuitive claim that, "those who cause the greatest harm are the people that pursue the greatest good with the highest degree of zeal." Although we may empirically show that this is occasionally true, it's quite a leap grounded in iconoclasm and not reason to think that this is always or even usually the case.
BTW, I should have time tomorrow to skim through the scintillating "Marxism and the Unity of Science".
-- Luke