I'm curious what the political views of most utilitarians are. What are yours/those of other utilitarians you know/the overall split, if you can hazard a guess?

For my part, I'm left of centre in that I think the state/society should, if it can, intervene to promote general welfare, and that the lowest cost ways of doing so will help the poor disproportionately. And I think that it can, as many elements of the welfare state have net positive utility, public heathcare can be more efficient than a pure private model, etc. The fact that as a utilitarian I don't believe in natural property rights (which I think most people do) also marks me out as more left-wing. But I'm somewhat convinced by the benefits of free markets as being (in most cases) one of the best means for achieving these 'progressive' ends. And as a utilitarian I don't believe that equality is intrinsically valuable either.

In my experience we're almost all extreme social libertarians (maybe divided on a few issues like gun control, immigration?) and economically we run the gamut, with slight weighting away from extreme regulation.

I voted other for two reasons:

1) because I think politics (esp the economic aspect) is far more complicated than people give it credit for, and until it actually becomes a science we should be far more tentative in our conclusions than anyone actually is - and that therefore our expected benefit from trying to pursue our political views is low. (even before accounting for the numbing effect of politics on intelligence)
2) because even in cases where we can apparently be confident of large differences between parties, political involvement still seems suboptimal from both a utilitarian and self-interested perspective.

In theory I'm as social liberal as the rest of us and somewhere in the centre on economics, but I have very low confidence in my conclusions.

I put myself as libertarian, but I don't know how accurate that is.

I am for some wealth redistribution, as I believe the way it all works out naturally is arbitrary. That is, the people who contribute will always get more, but how much more they get is dependent on the way the economy works. For example, mass production allows poor people to get a higher proportion.

I suspect that the natural distribution is too much for the rich and little for the poor, but wealth redistribution is biased the opposite direction.

Subsidies and taxes are an effective way to deal with externalities, but given the government's track record for them, I think it would probably be better to do without except in extreme circumstances. Also, it should be limited to taxes and subsidies i.e. nothing should be entirely illegal unless it's really extreme, like actually attacking someone.

I am for the government heavily taxing animal cruelty e.g. factory farming and animal testing (I'm for animal testing, but only if it's important enough that they'd be willing to pay the tax)

I'm not sure about foreign aid. Theoretically, it's good, but I've heard the government is really, really bad at it.

I really don't fit.

I'd start off by saying that I'm liberal on all social issues, whereas I'm conservative in wanting to balance a budget. I'm environmentalist. So overall I'm fairly leftist.

But I'd alienate myself from most leftists on a couple of counts. Firstly, leftists always talk of "closing the gap", I take issue with that phrase. We shouldn't try to equalise wealth, or health or wellbeing. We should try to lift it. Make the poor richer, and make the rich richer, dont' close the gap! On a similar note, leftists always want to reduce taxes for relatively poor Australians, or Englishmen, or Americans. Well poor westerners are still rich by global standards. We don't need to redistribute wealth within our contries. If we were series about redistribution of wealth, we'd do it internationally. We'd care for the poor - the absolutely poor - in Africa, mostly. Charity doesn't start at home, contrary to the beliefs of most leftists.

I guess I'm aligned with libertarians on some topics, though not all. So I can't really pidgeonhole myself

I suspect that the natural distribution is too much for the rich and little for the poor, but wealth redistribution is biased the opposite direction.

What do you think the 'right' distribution (in which no one has too much or too little) is, on utilitarian criteria? It's an empirical question I realise, but as I alluded to in my OP, I suspect significant additional resources to the poor would increase net utility.

Subsidies and taxes are an effective way to deal with externalities, but given the government's track record for them, I think it would probably be better to do without except in extreme circumstances.

So, a carbon tax? Cigarette taxes? Duties on unhealthy food and drink?

I'm not sure about foreign aid. Theoretically, it's good, but I've heard the government is really, really bad at it.

From what I hear, DfID in the UK isn't bad, relatively speaking.

I'm conservative in wanting to balance a budget

Just a minor note - I'm not sure there's any good reason to lump this with other conservative policies. A balanced high-tax budget doesn't seem conservative, even just in respect of being balanced.

We don't need to redistribute wealth within our contries. If we were series about redistribution of wealth, we'd do it internationally. We'd care for the poor - the absolutely poor - in Africa, mostly. Charity doesn't start at home, contrary to the beliefs of most leftists.

I agree, but it's interesting to think about why leftists think this. I suspect, given that many leftists are (often closeted) internationalists, that in some cases it's simply because that's more politically viable, given the average voter's more likely to feel solidarity with and want to help people in their community. In other circumstances it's probably because this hasn't occurred to them. In yet others it may be because their primary motive really isn't welfarist, but about wanting to build a non-capitalist society or somesuch.

I think politics (esp the economic aspect) is far more complicated than people give it credit for, and until it actually becomes a science we should be far more tentative in our conclusions than anyone actually is

I agree, but you can go too far in this (I'm not saying that you do). My impression is that there's quite strong evidence for some economic claims, so that someone more familiar with economics than me could have a reasonable level of confidence in them, and shouldn't be over modest. But since I'm not myself an expert on economics my confidence in that can only be slight!

I suspect significant additional resources to the poor would increase net utility.

If you give additional resources to the poor, they'd have less incentive to work. While it's unlikely they'll decide not to work at all, they are likely to decide against a second job.

So, a carbon tax? Cigarette taxes? Duties on unhealthy food and drink?

Taxes probably don't have to be held to as high a standard as subsidies, as not as many people will be pushing for them, so a greenhouse gas tax would probably be good.

I'm not aware of externalities for cigarettes and unhealthy food. I suppose you could consider damage to your future self an externality, given that people don't seem to care as much about their future selves than about their present selves. It still seems like to much of a stretch.

From what I hear, DfID in the UK isn't bad, relatively speaking.

It's a question of how good they are absolutely speaking. Which countries are better than others isn't really relevant.

If you give additional resources to the poor, they'd have less incentive to work. While it's unlikely they'll decide not to work at all, they are likely to decide against a second job.

What actual policies do you think would do this (to such an extent that this overwhelms their positive effects)? A minimum wage? Unemployment benefits (conditional on seeking a job) of £4000 a year to take the UK figure (possibly plus free housing)? Exempting people on below average incomes from income tax?

I ask because I'm not sure there's strong reason to think this reduced incentive will kick in until benefits are quite generous. Rich and middle class people seem to be motivated to improve their already decent incomes, so they at least aren't sated.

I'm not aware of externalities for cigarettes and unhealthy food. I suppose you could consider damage to your future self an externality, given that people don't seem to care as much about their future selves than about their present selves. It still seems like to much of a stretch.

A more central question than the above: why as a utilitarian should you limit yourself to considering externalities, as opposed to all the positive and negative consequences, including those for the smoker?

DanielLC wrote:It's a question of how good they are absolutely speaking.

What’s a question how good they are absolutely speaking? Surely we’re interested in how good they are relative to some alternative option... the obvious comparison to me would be whether they’re better than the same amount of money (plus the admin cost of the government getting it) in the possession of citizens of the country in question. In that case it seems to me that the bar is pretty low – few people will give as much as 5% of their income to things they consider good causes, and of those causes many will be massively inefficient or even counter-productive (cf for example two contradictory charities – the National Rifle Association Foundation and the Brady Campaign).

What actual policies do you think would do this (to such an extent that this overwhelms their positive effects)? A minimum wage? Unemployment benefits (conditional on seeking a job) of £4000 a year to take the UK figure (possibly plus free housing)? Exempting people on below average incomes from income tax?

First off, minimum wage is a horrible idea. It helps the people who have jobs, but makes it harder for others to get jobs. There's no reason to eliminate jobs that aren't that valuable.

The problem with unemployment benefits is that they effectively make a job worth that much less. If you have a job offer worth £8000 a year, and unemployment benefits of £4000 a year, the job effectively only pays £4000 a year, and it's the worse £4000 a year. Worse, if you're offered a job worth less than £4000 a year, it's never worth while to take it. Perhaps it would work if they made it easy to offer one of those people jobs, and they had to take it, provided it's worth at least the unemployment.

Unfortunately, I'm still in school, and I have no concept of how much money is worth, so I have no way of answering directly. You should be able to live on it, but not very comfortably. Perhaps it would be best to make it so you're just given (bad) lodging and food, or possibly just live outside if that doesn't work out too badly.

A more central question than the above: why as a utilitarian should you limit yourself to considering externalities, as opposed to all the positive and negative consequences, including those for the smoker?

Generally, people don't deal with stuff happening to other people as well as stuff happening to themselves. This is why you need to worry about externalities in the first place. If politicians control what you do, this goes from you controlling what happens to yourself to them controlling what happens to someone else.

I look forward to reading this thread.


For the most part, I think I'm left wing/liberal. I expected that most consequentialists would be liberal/left wing. I no longer think that subjective experience (happiness/suffering) can be objectively quantified but I think that happiness/suffering should be the sole basis of all political and moral policies and decisions, I don't know how much of a difference that makes.

My ideal society would be anarchist-communist but I accept capitalism as a necessary 'evil', I just think it should be strongly regulated to ensure universal health care, welfare programs, education (even college/university) etc. I'm for progressive taxation. I'm for gun control, against affirmative action, pro-choice when it comes to abortion, against seat belt laws (weak position), I think smoking should be banned in public, hard drugs should be legalized, sexuality should not be censored but violence should, marriage as a legal institution should be abolished (still working on this one), evolution should be taught in schools etc., none of my positions are fixed, I might change my mind on any of them.

edit:

And as a utilitarian I don't believe that equality is intrinsically valuable either.

I think a distinction should be made between prescriptive equality and descriptive equality.

I think a distinction should be made between prescriptive equality and descriptive equality.

Care to make it? I'm not familiar with that distinction, particularly as it would apply to policies...

tog wrote:

I think a distinction should be made between prescriptive equality and descriptive equality.

Care to make it? I'm not familiar with that distinction, particularly as it would apply to policies...

Er, by prescriptive equality I mean a state of affairs where people are treated as equals or have the same opportunities, benefits, rights etc. and by descriptive equality I mean the idea that people are equally 'deserving' of happiness (or preference satisfaction, knowledge, whatever you consider to be inherently valuable) whether they're treated as equals or not. As a hedonist, I think that everyone's happiness is equally valuable and for that reason, everyone should be given equal moral consideration, everyone is equal in that regard. Treating people as equals is only useful because people are happier when they're treated as equals.

If there were no way to alleviate poverty but I could 'equalize' things by eliminating the wealth of the privileged minority and make everyone equally poor, I wouldn't, unless the envy of the poor was greater than the distress it would cause.

I just think it should be strongly regulated to ensure universal health care, welfare programs, education (even college/university) etc.

Why education? At some point, the costs outweigh the benefits. From what I understand, thanks to our strong cultural bias towards education, we're already past that point.

I come from a strong left background but have left it behind. Now I only care about politics insofar as it can be used to affect top utilitarian questions such as existential risk or future animal treatment. Here in sweden it seems like many of the utilitarian philosophers have a strong left background. For instance, Torbjörn Tännsjö is active in our former communist party (now perhaps more like old-school social democrats).

One ideological characteristic I'd expect utilitarians to share is a rejection of all ethical/political first principles other than the utility principle. That instantly puts them in disagreement with most people's ideologies (however choate or inchoate), as these generally include a number of other first principles, such as a belief in the intrinsic value of equality, or a belief that people should get what they deserve, or a belief that certain sorts of liberty are inviolable.

It's tempting to look at this and say we're the ultimate pragmatists, but of course everyone is a pragmatist relative to their fixed first principles. Still, an endorsement of any means that promote the end of maximising happiness is something many people would call pragmatic...

It's tempting to look at this and say we're the ultimate pragmatists, but of course everyone is a pragmatist relative to their fixed first principles. Still, an endorsement of any means that promote the end of maximising happiness is something many people would call pragmatic...

Well, Tog, bow to the temptation! Utilitarianism is the surrender of all ideals to pragmatism. We ought to take some pride in our worldview for a change!!!!

Oh, I'd certainly be happy to claim the term