Okay, another short one, but I think this one is relevant and goes into some stuff that I've been saying. Apparently, I'm more utilitarian in my ethics than anything, and utilitarians generally don't need to worry about the lockean proviso as much because they dont care about the state vs the state of nature, but rather the state vs better iterations of the state. my ethics are very utilitarian in nature.
However, utilitarianism also has flaws, which Widerquist himself even mentioned, and I tend to distance myself from to some extent. For example, Widerquist mentions that utilitarians are generally concerned about averages and often show little regard for screwing over some portion of the population to ensure the rest live well. I'm kind of aware of these flaws too. I mean, you could sacrifice a homeless person and use their organs to save 10 productive members of society and have it be considered good by utilitarian metrics. I think that is screwed up, and as such, prefer rule utilitarianism. I actually support the idea of rights and stuff, not because rights are natural or dictated by god, but because they themselves bring utilitarian outcomes. Sure you can live in a society in which you have to worry about being murdered to say others, or you can live in a society in which everyone's life is considered "sacred" to some degree and indispensible. That might actually be better in the long term. Even if killing someone to save 10 others sounds nice on paper, in practice the safety that comes with not being murdered might actually be beneficial. I also think utilitarianism should place more emphasis on the well being of the worst off over the well being of the best off. This is where my utilitarianism intersects with the likes of rawls with his veil of ignorance, or widerquist with his justice as pursuit of accord. The fact is, if you build a society from the ground up where the poor are given more attention than the rich, then this is going to raise overall societal happiness levels. Rather than just focus on averages as many capitalists would in defending their ideas, we focus on ensuring the benefits of society are widely distributed. I mean, let's face it, with things like wealth, there is likely a thing about diminishing marginal returns. People might think it's unjust to kill a poor person to harvest organs, but they might also think the same about a rich person and their wealth. I mean I even remember in political theory classes people being uncomfortable with the idea of just siezing a rich person's wealth and redistributing it. But I would argue if it's done within the confines of "rule utilitarianism" via taxation and a rule of law that affects everyone in such a circumstance (rather than just saying F Jeff Bezos in particular or something), and it's done in a way to ensure that even after the redistribution, those rich people are still the most rich and well off in society (so not really picking winners and losers as much as raising the bottom as a whole), then we could argue that that's just. I really would have no issue with say, taxing a rich person at 70%, and taking that wealth and distributing it to all. As long as 1) we tax all rich people with the same income in the same way, 2) the benefits are distributed back in a fair manner for all, and 3) the minimal rights of the person in terms of their liberty, well being, happiness, are respected. Like taking ALL of someone's property is probably bad, but taking excessive amounts and giving it back to everyone equally seems more fair to me. As long as we leave people alone on some level where they are treated at least the same as the worst person would be equally.
Like, I'm for rights for utilitarian reasons. Rights are utilitarian. But at the same time, some rights, like property, should be limited for utilitarian reasons. I dont think it's just for some to have so much only for others to be so badly off their own person is insecure as a result where they are forced to work for others. Private property rights that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and force the poor into servitude are unjust. Every person should be allowed to be secure of their own person, and have their basic needs met. If anything, I feel like the property rights of the rich violate much more utilitarian and fundamental rights of the masses.
So yeah, that's how I square utilitarianism with widerquist's theories to some extent. I just thought that was worth mentioning.
The rest of the chapter discussed how people like marx and engels looked at the plight of the poor under capitalism but never particularly matched that with the lockean proviso, and also how kropotkin used empirical analysis to undermine the lockean proviso to some degree.
I must say I really do respect the use of empiricism here in studying these theories. if there's anything I hate and dont respect in academia, it's a theory without evidence that just relies on "just trust me bro", and it does seem like that a lot of core doctrines that underlie our own society tend to rely on this thinking, and people take them for granted. So yeah, this is a good book in this sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment