At 1:09 PM -0500 2/11/06, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> More importantly, I fundamentally disagree with the utilitarian concept of
> ethics that you seem to espouse, namely that people reciprocate and grant
> other people rights solely because this has the utility of obtaining the
> same for themselves. I am pretty sure that it is not how most people think
> - most people do what they think is right, not what they think will maximize
> their safety, convenience or utility.
> The pitfall of this argument is that the normative principle in question
> does not hold in non-reciprocity situations. If one can ensure that one is
> not paid back in kind for one's actions, one is not obliged to extend the
> notion of rights to anyone.
Most people do what they think is right but they also incorporate a utilitarian concept at the same time. Human thinking is too complex to be described by either concept alone.
> The victor or the jailer does not have to
> extend any right to the conquered or imprisoned people, because they are
> prevented from reciprocating. Why should he? Whether those subjugates are
> actual animals or "tier-menschen" to borrow from Nazi terminology, they are
> prevented from reciprocating by force, so they do not deserve any rights.
This assumes that the relationship between jailer and captive or between two countries is static. This is not true. It is not beyond human reasoning to imagine extending rights to the conquered because they may be in a position to reciprocate later. It also assume that a conquerer is free to do what they wish with no chance of reprisal. This simply does not exist in the real world. Prisoners can and have killed their jailers in retaliation for punishment. A utilitarian approach can explain how
> I have a rather strong distaste toward utilitarian ethics (not as much as
> toward religion, but close,) because it is an ethics of convenience
> that can justify almost anything. In the extreme case, it is the ethics of
> concentration camps.
The concept of duty (manifest destiny) to conquer the "wilderness" tame the savage and spread civilization lead to concentration camps as well only they were called reservations. Utilitarianism is no more or less adept at bringing about such things. Besides, if you don't believe utilitarianism explains behavior, but rather a concept of duty within a social framework does, then how do you explain the existence of concentration camps? Utilitarianism somehow took hold and blotted out the existing framework and made them possible?
> But even more importantly, it is the ethics that makes
> the individual rather than something greater than individuals (e.g.
> collective or the universe) the center of ethical gravity. In that
> respect, it is the ethics of capitalism.
Please explain how utilitarianism does this but other concepts fail to provide a similar framework for thinking. I do not think you can.
>
> Most people follow deontological ethics of doing
> what is right, which is based on the concept of duty. The notion of
> duty is innate and universal - virtually people have it, albeit the actual
> contents varies from culture to culture.
>
> I believe, however, that the duty to reciprocate is pretty universal too.
> From that point of view, it is possible to extent rights to anyone or
> anything on the grounds that this is a right thing to do (i.e. one has
> the duty to do so.). I extend the concept of rights to animals not
> because they can reciprocate, but because it is an ethical thing to do. If I did
> not do, it would say something negative about me, even if animals could not
> reciprocate (even though I think they can).
I wish the duty to reciprocate were universal but I have not seen convincing evidence that this is true. I am glad to see you know animals can and do reciprocate.
John Thornton