Negative Utilitarian Priorities
B.Contestabile admin@socrethics.com First version 2005 Last version 2009
|
Table of Contents
2.1 Definition 2.2 Criticism 3.1 Definition 3.2 Comparison with UNO Priorities 3.3 Cost-benefit Analysis 3.4 Criticism 4 Negative Utilitarian Approach 4.1 Definition 4.2 Comparison with Copenhagen Priorities 4.3 Cost-benefit Analysis
|
|
Type of problem What difference does it make, if global ethical priorities are based on the classical utilitarian approach to save as many lives as possible or the negative utilitarian approach to remove as much suffering as possible?
Result A negative utilitarian approach recommends the following top priorities:
Most of these priorities are not even mentioned in the Copenhagen Consensus. This illustrates the remarkable difference between a classical and negative utilitarian approach to the problem of ethical priorities.
|
Starting point
Starting point is the concept of justice proposed in Negative Utilitarianism and Justice, a synthesis between Rawls’ Theory of Justice and negative utilitarianism. In the following it is cited as “negative utilitarian approach” (NU). Note that (in this paper) the abbreviation NU doesn’t refer to the original version of negative utilitarianism.
Type of problem
What difference does it make, if global ethical priorities are based on the classical utilitarian approach to save as many lives as possible or the negative utilitarian approach to remove as much suffering as possible?
Method
1. The UNO millennium goals are taken as a basis, because they represent the result of intense discussions among a considerable number of experts. The UNO experts are supposed to represent the majority of the world population.
2. The Copenhagen Consensus criticizes the UNO priorities as being ineffective. It uses a classical utilitarian approach.
3. The Copenhagen Consensus is compared with a negative utilitarian approach.
2.1 Definition
UNO priorities
The UNO activities concentrate on four main topics and a cross sectional topic (human rights). See Kern-UNO.
1. Peace and security
2. Economic and social development
3. Humanitarian aid
4. Environment and population
5. Human rights
These five topics can be considered as the permanent priority list of the UNO.
Millennium goals
See Millennium indicators database, by the UNO department for economic and social affairs.
The millennium goals are an attempt, to set priorities within the five topics above:
1) Peace and security:
Not among the millennium goals
2) Economic and social development
a) Achieve universal primary education
b) Develop a global partnership for development
3) Humanitarian aid
a) Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
b) Reduce child mortality
c) Improve maternal health
d) Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
4) Environment and population:
Ensure environmental sustainability
5) Human rights:
Promote gender equality and empower women
2.2 Criticism
The millennium goals concentrate on solidarity (humanitarian aid, environment and population, human rights). There are three arguments to criticize this strategy:
1) Peace and security should get a higher priority. International solidarity cannot be implemented in times of war and political instability. The following priorities should to be added to the list: Prevention of
a) Civil conflicts
b) Proliferation of weapons for mass destruction
c) War and terrorism
2) Economic and social development. The forces of the market can be used to reach some of the millennium goals. The following priorities should be added to the list:
a) Financial stability
b) Quality of governance
c) Liberal international migration
d) Trade reform
3) Cost benefit: The millennium goals do not consider the argument of cost and benefit.
3.1 Definition
The Copenhagen Consensus is an attempt to answer to the following question:
What would be the best ways of advancing global welfare, and particularly the welfare of developing countries, supposing that an additional $50 billion of resources were at governments’ disposal?
See Copenhagen Consensus. The following list based on the 2004 version of the Copenhagen Consensus. The results of the 2006 meeting are not yet considered:
3.2 Comparison with UNO Priorities
Peace and security
|
Copenhagen Consensus |
UNO Millennium Goals |
|
Reduce incidence of civil wars |
- |
Economic and social development
|
Copenhagen Consensus |
UNO Millennium Goals |
|
Improve education in developing countries |
Achieve universal primary education |
|
Improve international financial stability |
- |
|
Liberalize international migration |
- |
|
Improve governance in develop. countries |
- |
|
Provide access to water and sanitation |
- |
|
Trade reform |
- |
|
- |
Global partnership for development |
Humanitarian aid
|
Copenhagen Consensus |
UNO Millennium Goals |
|
Prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS |
Combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases |
|
Eradicate hunger and malnutrition |
Eradicate hunger and malnutrition |
|
Combat malaria |
Combat malaria |
|
- |
Reduce child mortality |
|
- |
Improve maternal health |
Environment and population
|
Copenhagen Consensus |
UNO Millennium Goals |
|
Protect climate |
Ensure environmental sustainability |
Human rights
|
Copenhagen Consensus |
UNO Millennium Goals |
|
- |
Promote gender equality, empower women |
3.3 Cost-benefit Analysis
The following table is the result of a cost-benefit analysis, applied on the priorities of chapter 3.2. See Copenhagen Consensus.
|
Priority |
UNO Topic |
Project |
Investment in billion $ |
|
1 |
3 |
Control of HIV/AIDS |
27 |
|
2 |
3 |
Providing micro nutrients |
12 |
|
3 |
2 |
Trade liberalization |
-- |
|
4 |
3 |
Control of malaria |
13 |
|
|
|
Total |
52 |
The proposal to liberalize trade faces political resistance. Overcoming such resistance can be regarded as cost of implementation. The panel took the view that such political cost should be excluded from their calculations.
3.4 Criticism
1) Higher standards of governance in the world's poor countries were considered of paramount importance. There were five proposals for improvement, but only one was included in the priority list. For the others there was too little information about the cost of implementation to calculate a priority.
2) Lowering the barriers for trade or migration faces political resistance. The exclusion of political costs from the calculations might give a wrong picture. Again (as in the case of bad governance mentioned above) it is questionable, to exclude essential factors because they are difficult (or impossible) to calculate.
3) For each of above priorities a number of projects were evaluated, using a cost-benefit analysis. Saved or recovered lives are assets calculated in dollars. The negative welfarist approach questions the utility function used in this calculation.
4) The Copenhagen Consensus takes the criticism of chapter 2.2 into consideration. It is a more market oriented approach and subdues each proposal to a cost-benefit analysis. Nevertheless this new approach does not change the top priority of humanitarian aid requested by the millennium goals. Three of the four top projects proposed by the Copenhagen Consensus concern humanitarian aid. Only the priorities within humanitarian aid are questioned. The reason might be the method used. Short term projects in the area of humanitarian aid are the easiest to calculate. The result might be pre-defined by the method.
4. Negative Utilitarian Approach
4.1 Definition
In analogy to the Copenhagen Consensus the negative utilitarian approach (NU) is an attempt to answer the following question:
What would be the best ways of implementing NU, supposing that an additional $50 billion of resources were at the disposal of Non-Government-Organizations (NGO's)?
4.2 Comparison with Copenhagen Priorities
The ethical goal
The Copenhagen Consensus seeks to increase global welfare. Welfare is measured in dollar assets. This method allows expansion at the cost of the quality of life. The NU strategy stands for moderation in favor of the quality of life. In NU the welfare of the maximum sufferers is a major criterion for moral valuation.
Principle of consequentialism
1. This paper maintains the following position: At the present state of knowledge it is impossible to quantify suffering and calculate priorities as it is done in the Copenhagen Consensus. It therefore works with qualitative statements and theses.
2. The Copenhagen priorities are taken as a basis for comparison. The difference to NU is documented in the following tables:
International peace and security
|
NU Priorities |
Copenhagen Consensus |
|
Reduce incidence of civil and religious wars |
yes |
|
Stop proliferation of weapons for mass destruction |
no |
|
Stop terrorism |
no |
Economic and social development
|
NU Priorities |
Copenhagen Consensus |
|
Reform trade |
yes |
|
Improve governance in developing countries |
yes |
|
Improve education in developing countries |
yes |
|
Improve international financial stability |
yes |
|
no |
Liberalize migration |
|
Support palliative research |
no |
Humanitarian aid
|
NU Priorities |
Copenhagen Consensus |
|
Prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS |
yes |
|
Combat malaria |
yes |
|
Eradicate hunger and malnutrition |
yes |
|
Provide access to water and sanitation |
yes |
|
Implement a minimum standard of palliative care |
no |
Environment and population
|
NU Priorities |
Copenhagen Consensus |
|
Protect climate |
yes |
|
Avoid overpopulation |
no |
|
Development & propagation of ethical knowledge |
no |
Human rights
|
NU Priorities |
Copenhagen Consensus |
|
Eradicate torture |
no |
|
Legalize voluntary euthanasia and prevent abuse |
no |
|
Implement democracy worldwide |
no |
|
Improve animal welfare |
no |
4.3 Cost-benefit Analysis
Method
1) As opposed to the Copenhagen Consensus we maintain that the ranking of investments cannot be based on a calculus because the system is too complex and the priorities depend on each other.
2) The list in chapter 4.2 is used as a basis. An attempt is made to consider cost and benefit when selecting priorities out of this list, but since there is no way to quantify variables the term cost-benefit analysis is used in a very rough way here.
In the following some theses are presented for the selection of priorities and some non-government organizations (NGO’s) are selected, which support those priorities. NGO’s which concentrate on a specific priority can be found by charity navigators [Quality Control].
International peace and security
Thesis: International peace and security is a prerequisite for social stability and any attempt, to improve the situation of the most suffering minority.
Torture in particular is difficult to eradicate as long as civil and religious wars exist.
Example of an organisation which supports peace and security: International Peace Institute.
Economic and social development
Thesis: Fair global trade (according to Thomas W.Pogge) has the highest cost-benefit ratio in the fight against world poverty.
Alternate strategies which claim to have a high cost-benefit ratio:
1. The fight against corruption.
Examples: Global Integrity, Transparency International, Global Witness.
2. Constitutional legality and market economy, fortification of one’s own initiative and personal responsibility.
Example: Institute for Liberty and Democracy.
3. The investment in medical research (e.g. for vaccinations) is often more efficient than the investment in humanitarian aid.
Example: Medical Research Agencies of America
Humanitarian aid
Thesis: A minimum standard of nutrition and health care (in particular palliative care) has a high short term evidence of return on investment (in terms of reduced suffering). This evidence justifies the high priority of humanitarian aid in a cost-benefit analysis.
HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria (together) are the number one causer of global years of life lost [WHO, 2005].
The access to the victims of political and armed conflicts is the biggest challenge within the domain of humanitarian aid. There are two different strategies in this context:
1) Political neutrality. In many cases this has proven to be the best strategy in order to get access to the victims of armed conflicts.
Example: International Committee of the Red Cross
2) Analyze the causes of humanitarian catastrophes and combine aid with moral pressure. This strategy indirectly supports most of the other priorities mentioned in chapter 4.3.
Example: Medecins sans frontières.
Environment and population
Thesis: With an investment in population control, more suffering can be prevented than with an investment in peace and security, economic and social development or environment protection.
Concerning the close linkage between high suffering and high rates of population-increase see International Human Suffering Index. The prevention of overpopulation has a positive impact on all areas mentioned above but could be more efficient than a direct investment in those areas.
Example of an organisation which promotes population control: Population Council.
Human rights
Thesis 1: Extreme suffering like torture etc. can only be prevented by implementing human rights and democracy worldwide.
1) Prerequisites for the implementation of human rights and democracy are a free press and an efficient political opposition. Only a pluralistic political concept guarantees the protection of minorities.
2) Human rights organizations analyze the causes of human rights violations and put governments under moral pressure. This approach indirectly supports most of the other priorities mentioned in chapter 4.3.
3) The eradication of extreme suffering is the ultimate goal of NU. All other priorities mentioned in the cost-benefit analysis have a preventive character and serve this paramount priority. The development of high-tech torture on the basis of medical research (if it cannot be controlled) puts the whole research in question.
Examples of human rights organizations:
3) Anti-Slavery
Thesis 2: In countries with an advanced implementation of human rights the priority should be given to the legalization of voluntary euthanasia.
Active euthanasia violates the law in the United States and all european countries except Holland and Belgium. Passive euthanasia violates the law in the United States and all european countries except Holland, Belgium and Switzerland.
Only voluntary euthanasia is discussed here. NU maintains the following position: Palliative care and the fight against depression have ethical priority, but active and passive euthanasia should be legalized in well-defined and controlled situations which prevent abuse. Ethical principles:
1) Autonomy (the individual is an end and not a means):
a) Life is given to an individual by an act of heteronomy; the wish to die can be considered as an attempt to regain autonomy.
b) The evaluation of ones life is tied to an individual biography and individual emotions and cannot be fully understood by others.
2) The right to avoid extreme suffering:
a) Manifest extreme suffering: The probability to escape extreme suffering has to be balanced with the suffering caused by suicide.
b) Probable extreme suffering: The probability for becoming a victim of extreme suffering has to be balanced with the suffering caused by suicide.
Right to die societies are locally organized, see World Federation.
Ethical knowledge
Investments in the development and propagation of ethical knowledge have the highest cost-benefit ratio in the fight against suffering. As far as the language of reason is a universal language, ethical knowledge may also contribute to reduce the incidence of religious wars.
On the biological level the survival value of suffering is poorly understood. On the cultural level the counterproductive mechanisms of technological and social change (and even charity) are largely unknown. There is no systems theory of suffering; there is no contemporary theory of karma (law of moral causation). Such a theory should help to understand the interdependency of the UNO topics.
1) Example 1: There is a biological pressure to expand the population at the cost of the quality of life. A reasonable population policy, on the other hand, attempts to restrict the number of children in compliance with the available resources. Does the fight against poverty lead to overpopulation and as a consequence to increased competition, wars and pandemics? According to Thomas W.Pogge the contrary is true. He considers the fight against poverty as the most efficient way to avoid overpopulation.
2) Example 2: The ambivalence of technological progress is poorly understood. Technological progress in the fight against suffering is only one side of the coin. The other side is technological risks of a dimension unknown so far, e.g. Nuclear warfare and Global warming (see Utility and Suffering in Culture).
3) Example 3: The estimated cost of road accidents exceeds the total expense for development aid [WHO, 2007].
For people between 15 and 19 years road traffic injuries are the No.1 ranked cause of death, for people between 10-14 and 20-24 years No.2 ranked [WHO, Youth and road safety, 2004]
4) Example 4: Dietrich Dörner investigates the harm, which is created by good intentions. In his computer game Tanaland he simulates development aid. After a few simulated game years the best intentions often create problems of a new magnitude, e.g. the digging out of new fountains leads to a sinking of the groundwater.
An example of an organization which propagates ethical knowledge is Panetics.
The quality of non-government organizations can be controlled by means of charity navigators [Quality control].
Analysis
The UNO millennium goals and the Copenhagen Consensus both show a clear first priority for economic and social development (topic 2) and humanitarian aid (topic 3). Where does this priority come from? The following thesis is a possible answer:
Thesis:
1. Projects which do not relate to utilitarian or religious philosophies of expansion get a small part of the resources. The goal to save as many lives as possible is given a higher priority than the goal to avoid suffering.
2. Expansionist philosophies favor projects where progress and efficiency can be measured. The ethical priorities of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other representatives of Philantrocapitalism correspond well to those of the Copenhagen Consensus.
From a NU point of view the priorities should be better balanced as proposed below:
A negative utilitarian approach recommends the following top priorities:
|
UNO Topic |
Project |
|
1 |
Reduction of civil and religious wars |
|
2 |
Fair trade |
|
3 |
Minimum standard of nutrition and health care |
|
4 |
Avoidance of overpopulation |
|
5 |
Eradication of torture and legalization of the right to die |
|
- |
Development and propagation of ethical knowledge |
Most of these priorities are not even mentioned in the Copenhagen Consensus. This illustrates the remarkable difference between a classical and negative utilitarian approach to the problem of ethical priorities.
|
Knowledge database 1. WHO, The injury chartbook, Geneva 2. WHO, World report on road traffic injury prevention
Quality control of non-government organizations 1. USA: Charity Navigator, Charity Chooser 2. Switzerland: ZEWO 3. Germany: DZI
|
|
Further Reading
1. Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential 2. Care – European Road Accident Database
|