It feels like most people have a moral intuition along the lines of “you should let people do what they want, unless they’re hurting other people”.
I seem to live on a different planet where the generally overriding moral intuition is that “people should be forced to do good”, and people are only left to do what they want when no particular opposing good has been identified. For utilitarians, every action but the optimal action is “harm”.
Utilitarians are still allowed, even encouraged, to notice that “for me to do X increases utility” and “for me to force others to do X increases utility” are not identical propositions.
(although I’d agree that lots of muddled utilitarianish philosophies ignore this distinction and/or assume that others are ignoring it as well)
Even with a strict utilitarianism world view, there is a big gap between “everyone should do as much good as possible” and “everyone should be forced to do as much good as possible”, since forcing people to do something itself creates negative utility. (Assuming that people don’t like to be forced to do things, and also assuming that freedom itself has some utility for most people). Also, you should leave a wide margin for error there, since as a general rule people tend to underestimate the harm they cause by forcing other people to do “the right thing”.
There probably are cases where it’s correct to force someone to do something for the good of everyone, but it would have to do a lot of good.
since forcing people to do something itself creates negative utility.
That’s a common assumption, all right. But what if many people actually wish to be slaves, wish to be forced into service? Christianity and Islam are predicated on being a slave of God or Allah. The doctrine seems to sell quite well, and has for a long time.
But more importantly, I see a world full of people for whom seeing others forced has great utility as long as their allegiance is to the institution doing the forcing. The details can be as absurdly trivial as you like, as long as the result is domination by your side and submission by others. In fact, as in Christianity and Islam, the usual true desired state is submission by everyone, only with extra abuse and force against those who resist domination.
George Bush said something like “A yearning for freedom beats within the hearts of all mankind.” Does it? I look at world history, and see quite the opposite. A desire for freedom is the great exception, not the rule.
But what if many people actually wish to be slaves, wish to be forced into service? Christianity and Islam are predicated on being a slave of God or Allah.
Well, I’m told that “Islam” translates roughly to “submission”, and most of the common theophoric names in the Islamic world include an “’abd-” (or “’amah-”, for female names) component, meaning servant or slave [of God]. It’s not clear to me how much this is supposed to imply literal slavery as opposed to running with the standard temporal hierarchy metaphor you find in most monotheistic religions, but it’s suggestive, at least.
References to slavery seem rarer in Christianity, but it does use a lot of verbiage suggestive of royalty or nobility, and most of its early evolution took place in times and places where slavery and subserviance (rather than mere loyalty) to a lord were easily within spitting distance of each other.
On the gripping hand, this is all supposed to be based on willing subordination to God. “Forced into service” doesn’t seem to describe the psychology very well, from where I’m standing.
Even ignoring the threat of eternal torture for failing to submit and obey, it’s not just that you give subordination or not, but that such subordination is God’s due—you owe it to him. You are his property.
But what if many people actually wish to be slaves, wish to be forced into service?
If people are on the whole content to be forced by other people (say, by the govnerment) into doing things for their own good against their will, then why didn’t prohibition work? Getting people to stop drinking so much alcohol was clearly going to create positive utility all around, right? So why did people resist so strongly against that loss of freedom?
Your religious argument is interesting, but frankly that’s a whole other conversation; it does seem to be possible to get people to do something “good” by convincing them that that’s what God wants them to do, but that’s really not the same thing as using actual force.
I seem to live on a different planet where the generally overriding moral intuition is that “people should be forced to do good”, and people are only left to do what they want when no particular opposing good has been identified. For utilitarians, every action but the optimal action is “harm”.
Utilitarians are still allowed, even encouraged, to notice that “for me to do X increases utility” and “for me to force others to do X increases utility” are not identical propositions.
(although I’d agree that lots of muddled utilitarianish philosophies ignore this distinction and/or assume that others are ignoring it as well)
Even with a strict utilitarianism world view, there is a big gap between “everyone should do as much good as possible” and “everyone should be forced to do as much good as possible”, since forcing people to do something itself creates negative utility. (Assuming that people don’t like to be forced to do things, and also assuming that freedom itself has some utility for most people). Also, you should leave a wide margin for error there, since as a general rule people tend to underestimate the harm they cause by forcing other people to do “the right thing”.
There probably are cases where it’s correct to force someone to do something for the good of everyone, but it would have to do a lot of good.
That’s a common assumption, all right. But what if many people actually wish to be slaves, wish to be forced into service? Christianity and Islam are predicated on being a slave of God or Allah. The doctrine seems to sell quite well, and has for a long time.
But more importantly, I see a world full of people for whom seeing others forced has great utility as long as their allegiance is to the institution doing the forcing. The details can be as absurdly trivial as you like, as long as the result is domination by your side and submission by others. In fact, as in Christianity and Islam, the usual true desired state is submission by everyone, only with extra abuse and force against those who resist domination.
George Bush said something like “A yearning for freedom beats within the hearts of all mankind.” Does it? I look at world history, and see quite the opposite. A desire for freedom is the great exception, not the rule.
What the hell? This has no basis in fact.
I wouldn’t say no basis… but yeah, it’s really quite phenomenally wrong.
Well, I’m told that “Islam” translates roughly to “submission”, and most of the common theophoric names in the Islamic world include an “’abd-” (or “’amah-”, for female names) component, meaning servant or slave [of God]. It’s not clear to me how much this is supposed to imply literal slavery as opposed to running with the standard temporal hierarchy metaphor you find in most monotheistic religions, but it’s suggestive, at least.
References to slavery seem rarer in Christianity, but it does use a lot of verbiage suggestive of royalty or nobility, and most of its early evolution took place in times and places where slavery and subserviance (rather than mere loyalty) to a lord were easily within spitting distance of each other.
On the gripping hand, this is all supposed to be based on willing subordination to God. “Forced into service” doesn’t seem to describe the psychology very well, from where I’m standing.
Even ignoring the threat of eternal torture for failing to submit and obey, it’s not just that you give subordination or not, but that such subordination is God’s due—you owe it to him. You are his property.
If people are on the whole content to be forced by other people (say, by the govnerment) into doing things for their own good against their will, then why didn’t prohibition work? Getting people to stop drinking so much alcohol was clearly going to create positive utility all around, right? So why did people resist so strongly against that loss of freedom?
Your religious argument is interesting, but frankly that’s a whole other conversation; it does seem to be possible to get people to do something “good” by convincing them that that’s what God wants them to do, but that’s really not the same thing as using actual force.
There are quite a few definitions of good that make “people should be forced to do good” trivially false.