I am delighted to join this community of online moral theorists—theorists who seem to have a deep concern that their theories impact and improve upon both their online and offline societies!

I am a senior doctoral candidate in ethical, moral, social, and political philosophy, at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. My curriculum vitae is here: http://goo.gl/pSuGp. My webpage is here: http://natcphd.me.

I am currently conducting research to analyse and criticise (1) classical Utilitarian and (2) contemporary Utilitarian explanations of the wrongness of Negro slavery. The output of my research will be:

(1) an article, entitled 'British Utilitarianism's justification of Negro slavery', and
(2) an article, entitled 'What is wrong with [R. M. Hare's arguments against Negro] slavery'

1. Classical Utilitarianism: Bentham & Mill

'For all their intelligence and imagination neither Bentham nor Mill seemed to recognise or discuss' the possibility that 'utilitarianism can require slavery' (Jonathan Wolff 2006: 1).

Wolff was wrong. I shall argue that these two inventors of Utilitarianism both recognised and discussed the way in which their new moral theory explained not the wrongness, but the rightness of the Negro slavery that Britain slowly abolished during their lifetime. Wolff's words are ambiguous. Wolff could mean (a) 'utilitarianism can require the introduction of slavery where slavery does not already exist' or (b) 'utilitarianism can require the maintenance of slavery where slavery already exists'. I shall show that Mill recognised and discussed (a) and that Bentham recognised and discussed (b).

Wolff, Jonathan. 2006. Making the world safe for Utilitarianism. In Political philosophy, ed. Anthony O'Hear, 1–22. Cambridge: CUP.

2. Contemporary Utilitarianism: Hare

'It is often said that utilitarianism must be an objectionable creed because it could in certain circumstances condone or even commend slavery given that circumstances can be envisaged in which utility would be maximized by preserving a slave-owning society and not abolishing slavery'.

This is how Richard Mervyn Hare (1979: 104) put the challenge that slavery poses to Utilitarianism. Hare responded by arguing that Utilitarianism can explain both (a) why our intuition that slavery is wrong is the best intuition for us to have, and (b) why our intuition that slavery is wrong is true. I shall focus on the three distinct arguments that Hare offers in support of (b):
—an argument from disutility: Slavery is wrong, because it produces misery.
—an argument from inconsistency: Slavery is wrong, because it treats unequally the equal interests of the free and the enslaved person.
—an argument from authority: Slavery is wrong, because R. M. Hare said so.

Hare, Richard Mervyn. 1979. What is wrong with slavery. Philosophy & Public Affairs 8(2): 103–121.

I would love to hear the perspectives of utilitarians on the arguments I am developing!

Nathaniel

Hi Nathaniel, thanks for joining. Could you clarify whether you agree with the following claims?

1. Given the way Negro slavery actually was, it was wrong according to utilitarian standards.
2. There are no realistically foreseeable circumstances under which something like Negro slavery would be right according to utilitarian standards.

I think these claims are true, but I'm not sure what you think about them. Your title 'British Utilitarianism's justification of Negro slavery' and your statement that you are going to criticize classical utilitarianism in the context suggests you may disagree with these claims.

I agree that this claim:

3. Prominent utilitarians have failed to explain why slavery is wrong

may be true. But it can be true even if claims 1 and 2 are true. If 3 is true, it is not clear that this would constitute a deep flaw in utilitarianism, rather than the ability of prominent utilitarians to apply their theory.

utilitymonster,

It is splendid to receive your kind and prompt reply.

I feel there is good reason to doubt that your propositions 1 and 2 are true. I give what I think is a good reason, in the first part of my work-in-progress, entitled 'What is wrong with [R. M. Hare's arguments against Negro] slavery'. That text is available, here: http://goo.gl/u2MSa.

I concede that, on the face of it, your proposition 3 says more about 'prominent utilitarians', than it does about 'their theory'. However, upon deeper reflection, one is left wondering what there is of worth in a theory whose prominent advocates are unable to defend.

Nathaniel

—an argument from disutility: Slavery is wrong, because it produces misery.

I'm not a historian or an expert on the economics or social science of slavery. But this claim seems so obviously true to me that it doesn't require extensive justification.

The whole point of slavery is to use physical force as a replacement for consensual economic bargaining power. Why would you ever enslave someone instead of engaging in voluntary contract with them? The only rational reason is to turn a physical power advantage into economic exploitation, i.e. you force bad deals down the throats of people who can't defend themselves physically.

Whenever there is an interaction that could easily be consensual, but is instead non-consensual, the default assumption should be utility parasitism. And more often than not, utility parasitism comes with a multiplier for the disutility, i.e. the gain to one side is smaller than the loss to the other (otherwise, the powerful side could just compensate them and avoid the physical conflict).

The very fact that a seemingly intellectual debate exists whether utiltiarianism condones this or not is evidence that the utilitarian thing to do is to spread simple deontological rules of conduct for simple people: Slavery was wrong because it violated the basic rights of the slaves.

Hedonic Treader,

I thank you for your kind response. The points you make are a little difficult for me to discern, so I have numbered the points I have been able to discern.

1. I argue against R. M. Hare's assertion that '[s]lavery is wrong, because it produces misery', in the first part of my paper. Please do take a look at that text: http://goo.gl/u2MSa. I do not agree that this assertion is 'obviously true'. For this reason, it would be good to hear your perspective on my argument.

2. You suggest that someone who is 'not a historian or an expert on the economics or social science of slavery' has sufficient evidence with which to offer an explanation of the wrongness of Negro slavery. R. M. Hare disagrees with you: 'Utilitarianism [ . . . ] unlike some other theories, is exposed to the facts. The utilitarian cannot reason a priori that whatever the facts about the world and human nature, slavery is wrong. He has to show that it is wrong by showing, through a study of history and other factual observation, that slavery does have the effects (namely the production of misery) which make it wrong' (1979: 118).

3. You assert that '[t]he whole point of slavery is to use physical force as a replacement for consensual economic bargaining power'. John Stuart Mill, in his review of 'The slave power', by John Elliott Cairnes, disagrees with you: ''It is not simply as a productive instrument that slavery is valued by its supporters. It is far rather for its social and political results, as the means of upholding a form of society in which slaveholders are the sole depositaries of social prestige and political power, as the corner-stone of an edifice of which they are the masters, that the system is prized. Abolish slavery, and you introduce a new order of things, in which the ascendancy of the men who now rule in the South would be at an end' (1862: 31).

4. You conclude that '[s]lavery was wrong because it violated the basic rights of the slaves'. I am sympathetic to this assertion, but I am curious to know exactly which ('basic'?) right(s?) you think (Negro?) slavery violated.

I very much look forward to hearing your perspective on my argument!

Nathaniel

natcphd wrote:2. You suggest that someone who is 'not a historian or an expert on the economics or social science of slavery' has sufficient evidence with which to offer an explanation of the wrongness of Negro slavery. R. M. Hare disagrees with you: 'Utilitarianism [ . . . ] unlike some other theories, is exposed to the facts. The utilitarian cannot reason a priori that whatever the facts about the world and human nature, slavery is wrong. He has to show that it is wrong by showing, through a study of history and other factual observation, that slavery does have the effects (namely the production of misery) which make it wrong' (1979: 118).

Yes yes, and next we will have a deep "utilitarian" discussion whether rape is wrong or not. After all, it causes sexual pleasure to the rapist and in light of that, surely we will need some deep "analysis" of how much pain is caused to the rape victim. I mean, seriously. I'm not a big fan of common sense, but in this case, it just obviously applies.

3. You assert that '[t]he whole point of slavery is to use physical force as a replacement for consensual economic bargaining power'. John Stuart Mill, in his review of 'The slave power', by John Elliott Cairnes, disagrees with you: ''It is not simply as a productive instrument that slavery is valued by its supporters. It is far rather for its social and political results, as the means of upholding a form of society in which slaveholders are the sole depositaries of social prestige and political power, as the corner-stone of an edifice of which they are the masters, that the system is prized. Abolish slavery, and you introduce a new order of things, in which the ascendancy of the men who now rule in the South would be at an end' (1862: 31).

Alright. Let us add social status parasitism to the economic parasitism, then. Still a form of utility parasitism: These men could have earned their status by convincing society they deserve it through merit in consensual interactions. Of course you could argue that organized physical violence is a form of merit. It certainly requires skill. The crucial part, imo, is that its application is non-consensual and its harms severe (compare the suffering induced by torture with the joy of torturing someone - also compare Bad is stronger than good).

4. You conclude that '[s]lavery was wrong because it violated the basic rights of the slaves'. I am sympathetic to this assertion, but I am curious to know exactly which ('basic'?) right(s?) you think (Negro?) slavery violated.

[/quote]
Bodily autonomy, freedom of association, movement and speech, property rights of one's own labour and physical property. I don't know exactly which ones were formally violated, but it's clear Negro (and other) slavery violated (and continues to violate) at least these.

Working is, in general, not very fun. Some forms of work are worse than others. Some things suck so much that the misery outweighs any benefit. You can't hire people to do these things unless you pay them more than it's worth. You can force a slave to do them though.

A lot of work done by slaves likely is worth doing. However, since it's worth doing, if you abolish slavery, they will just be hired to do it. The things that aren't worth doing will no longer get done. As such, abolishing slavery has large benefits for only minor costs.

I would be more sympathetic to slavery if laws are passed to prevent them from being abused, but there's no simple way to tell if they're abused. They might prefer to work longer if that means they can be kept in better conditions. They might prefer worse conditions if it means they don't have to work as long. It's best just to make them employees and let them sort it out.

Some comments in the form of questions:

1. The word "Negro" is not much used these days. What does its use here suggest? Are the people using it "negroes"? Or are they objectifying the "Negro" as Other? Are the people under discussion (those subjected to slavery, and their descendants) part of the conversation? Consider the perspective of those people, please, i.e. imagine that you are one of them, reading this. Are you part of the conversation?

2. Why is the issue "Negro slavery" and not "human slavery" or just "slavery?"

3. Why do we need a new theory to tell us why slavery is wrong?

4. Does the notion that this is needed suggest or imply anything?

4. Doesn't a "utilitarian" approach in which the problem with slavery is its "production of misery" suggest that slavery wouldn't be so bad if slaves were happy? Suppose we could arrange for slaves to be happy, through some combination of not-so-bad conditions, ideology and say, drugs or surgery or genetic engineering? Could that be a way to maximize utility?