A man named Weldon Marc Gilbert is in the news lately. He was a millionaire pilot who lured at least 17 different underage boys to himself, some as young as ten years old, and then videotaped himself raping them and/or performing various S&M on them. In 2009, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison, but only on child pornography charges. Since then, the state of Washington has decided to pursue rape charges against him as well, based on the content of the videos he had made.

Our noble democracy provides for some people to have rights. Because of Gilbert's rights to self-representation and to confront his accusers, he will present some of his 37 hours of porn in court, and the law will require his victims to sit on the witness stand and watch their younger selves being abused in the videos while Gilbert asks them questions.

This is more support for my assertion that "rights" are nothing more than a legal fiction. If this guy has these rights, then why don't the victims have the right not to watch videos of themselves as children being sexually abused and tortured? Because the entire concept of "rights" is flawed. Rights come from documents, not "god," and not nature. We claim to have property "rights," but why didn't the aboriginals who had lived in the Americas for some 14,000 years have any rights when our European ancestors came over and started exterminating and dispossessing them? Because there was no document enumerating their rights. Because rights are an ill-defined, ill-supported concept, based on the religion of "should," of "right" and "wrong" and "justice". We need a better way.

I propose that we focus on suffering, not on "right" and "wrong." I propose that we use science, as Sam Harris has suggested, to begin quantifying suffering, so we can apply our laws in ways that minimize suffering, that would prevent Gilbert's victims being required to watch these videos and answer his questions in court.

Why do you say it poisons utilitarianism? Rights are a deontology thing, not a utilitarianism thing.

DanielLC wrote:Why do you say it poisons utilitarianism? Rights are a deontology thing, not a utilitarianism thing.

Utilitarianism fails in only one key respect: it is intertwined with the religion of "should/ought/rights/etc." If we could get rid of this one problem, utilitarianism would be the gem it strives to be.

>>>Edit:

That's not a good answer, sorry. The answer is that "rights" are a facet of the religion of "should." It's really the entire religion that poisons utilitarianism, but "rights" are the theme I wanted to use as another way to present a better way that I've stumbled upon recently.

I get your conclusion and I get how "rights talk" can be frustrating and self-defeating (just look at the right to life vs. right to choose battle in abortion or other places), but I think a little bit of "rights" do have some role to play in utilitarianism, for the reasons that utilitarians are fallible at implementing utilitarianism and all the reasons that rule utilitarianism is thought to be a good idea.

Rights can just be an institution that is justified because it maximizes utility, and the rights that we should have are the rights that maximize utility.

Also, I look forward to your teardown of "ought" language, because I think "ought" language (unlike "rights talk", the good/evil dichotomy, or the right/wrong dichotomy) actually is frequently useful *and* makes sense analytically as long as the "ought" is end-relational.

Rights are a social coordination tool of significant instrumental value.

The perception of their violation also triggers considerable emotional and social aversion, which can easily be more costly than the violation is beneficial.

GreatBigBore wrote:

DanielLC wrote:Why do you say it poisons utilitarianism? Rights are a deontology thing, not a utilitarianism thing.

Utilitarianism fails in only one key respect: it is intertwined with the religion of "should/ought/rights/etc." If we could get rid of this one problem, utilitarianism would be the gem it strives to be.

That depends on who you're talking to.There are different paths to util; many of us here are metaethical nihilists, or sceptics of normativity, or whatever you want to call it. I'd guess we're even in the majority, though I think there are a few moral realists around. In practice it seems to have little effect on how we interact with the world.

Arepo wrote:

GreatBigBore wrote:

DanielLC wrote:Why do you say it poisons utilitarianism? Rights are a deontology thing, not a utilitarianism thing.

Utilitarianism fails in only one key respect: it is intertwined with the religion of "should/ought/rights/etc." If we could get rid of this one problem, utilitarianism would be the gem it strives to be.

That depends on who you're talking to.There are different paths to util; many of us here are metaethical nihilists, or sceptics of normativity, or whatever you want to call it. I'd guess we're even in the majority, though I think there are a few moral realists around. In practice it seems to have little effect on how we interact with the world.

Agreed.

This topic is out-dated. I think most of us have moved on long ago.

Rights are a social coordination tool of significant instrumental value.

I think I'd be shocked if some one here told me they thought there were laws that came from nature (note, I don't mean from people looking at nature, I know some one being picky could say that people are a part of nature so any law we make came from nature, I mean from another source of nature that we can never question or doubt) or god.

Utilitarianism fails in only one key respect: it is intertwined with the religion of "should/ought/rights/etc." If we could get rid of this one problem, utilitarianism would be the gem it strives to be.

No it doesn't, no it doesn't, and I already have, so I guess it is "the gem".

I wouldn't be shocked if others have "solved the problem" either.

On a side note, it seems you are letting your emotion get the best of you. You are blinded by personal beliefs when it comes to this subject. First off, the victims do have the "right" to not have to go though it, you seem to ignore that. You also seem to be quick to judge, the reasons those laws exist in the first place is because innocent people do go to jail.

On top of all of this, I'm going to make the assumption you are not considering this man's interests to be happy either. A utilitarian must always do this regardless of what personal opinion you have of him. If he is guilty and goes to jail, you must wish for him to be as happy as it is possible while their. There is no compromise in this situation. If my assumption about your view was wrong, good. If I wasn't then keep in mind we need to be considering his happiness just like that of every one else.

Nap, everything in your response was well-written and spot-on. I'm glad you wrote it.

However, I do feel the need to nitpick one aspect for clarity:

Nap wrote:If he is guilty and goes to jail, you must wish for him to be as happy as it is possible while their. There is no compromise in this situation.

Certainly prisons are not in the kind of condition they should be for maximizing total happiness, and certainly the current punishment system is extensively suboptimal. In short, prisoners are treated much more worsely than they should be.

However, I don't think their individual happiness should be maximized while in prison, or else prison would stop being the deterrent that it needs to be in order to maximize total happiness.

Nap wrote:

Rights are a social coordination tool of significant instrumental value.

I think I'd be shocked if some one here told me they thought there were laws that came from nature (note, I don't mean from people looking at nature, I know some one being picky could say that people are a part of nature so any law we make came from nature, I mean from another source of nature that we can never question or doubt) or god.

You missed my point. My point was that rights are incredibly useful tools. I've seen people argue against them in the name of "utility". I find this very dangerous because humans are inherently untrustworthy, and masterful rationalizers. If anything, we should build on the concept of individual legal rights rather than undermine it.

peterhurford wrote:However, I don't think their individual happiness should be maximized while in prison, or else prison would stop being the deterrent that it needs to be in order to maximize total happiness.

Ya, this is right. That said I don't view the world like most people, if I see a problem like crime, a childish threat of "if you do this you'll get a time out" doesn't appeal to me. I don't see a reason why people can't address the reason for the crime taking place in the first place. Jail seems to be an easy way for people to get away with not fixing things.

In a better world there wouldn't be much crime and if it does happen you could still maximize the criminals happiness, people shouldn't need to have a deterrent like that, there are other ways of doing things.

Utopian world bla bla bla unrealistic fantasies bla bla bla.

You missed my point. My point was that rights are incredibly useful tools. I've seen people argue against them in the name of "utility". I find this very dangerous because humans are inherently untrustworthy, and masterful rationalizers. If anything, we should build on the concept of individual legal rights rather than undermine it.

No, I understood your point. And I guess I can agree for now it is useful. Doesn't mean its the best way of doing things. And none of that matters because truth isn't about what is useful.

If its truth that rights don't come from a non-human source in nature or god then that is truth. It doesn't matter if its "dangerous". Lying (in this context lying is not accepting truth) is much more dangerous. To claim you know reality so well that you should lie about it is extremely arrogant. I think the one being that could make that judgment call is an omniscient being, some thing that is a paradox.

So to simplify, saying some thing is true when its not true is 99.999999999% of the time not a good thing.

Rights don't exist, they just don't. Freedom, justice all these are nonsense. We might have to accepted that for now we need to deal with them to maximize total happiness, just like jails, this doesn't make them real.

After thought:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory

- wiki

Normative has specialized contextual meanings in several academic disciplines. Generically, it means relating to an ideal standard or model.

- wiki

This is clearly non-sense to some one that thinks about it from a perspective wanting to understand truth.

First off entitlement? As the OP pointed out, what about native american's entitlement to the land? What entitles us to take that land? We can even do one better, what entitled them to it in the first place (from my very limited understanding of Indian culture they didn't think like that)?

Entitlement is a silly notion. What exactly gives it to you? Maybe a skill you were born with, or the work ethic to work for that skill (with an over simplified addition one can also say, one is also born with that work ethic), maybe its where you were born or to whom, or when, maybe its the color of your skin or maybe its just luck. Doesn't matter what people think they deserve entitlement for, they are wrong. The only reason we have it is because things seem to run a bit smoother if you tell people that they have it. People that want your stuff wont kill you for it and you'll work harder to get it.

Same with freedom, can I kill any random person I want? No, but I'm still free? I don't even need to talk about freewill for this one, but that would blow freedom clear out of the water.

"fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people"

Fundamental normative rules, those don't exist, if they did we'd live in a perfect world, I don't think its perfect so it can't be. In a perfect world every one would think its perfect, that's what perfect means. You don't know if I think its perfect you just have my word for that, but just ask yourself if you think its perfect. If the answer is no then our rules can still be improved upon making them not so fundamental and normative, if they aren't normative then why call them rights.

I think the best summery of all this is here:

The only reason we have it is because things seem to run a bit smoother if you tell people that they have it. People that want your stuff wont kill you for it and you'll work harder to get it.

I don't think rights are the end game for humanity, it just seems we're still too immature, for now, to move on past them.

Rights are the solution to social coordination problems with could be named as 'heuristics' too, because most rights I presume are not created based in statistical empirical evidence, but in cultural obviousness, like violations of all sort.

To me, legal constrains are good to scenarios, where outliers zip off becoming gods(monopolies). But in terms of resources, the private sector violate rights for the sake of efficiency. That is the reason economist don't like regulation, or governamental intervetions in sectors where things are working.

Including them in utilitarianism formulations could be done as additional theoretical components, but not principles.

Rights do exist as legal principles, regardless of whether they're ethically grounded or not. I agree with Hedonic Treader that people are fallible and often don't do a very good job of utilitarian reasoning, and thus we are better protected by rights than expecting people to be ideal utilitarians. Thus, rights as a legal construct have better consequences right now than doing away with rights.

I do agree that rights, in so far as they're supposed to be normative primitives justified by natural law and/or God are ridiculous.