First, there is nothing even remotely utilitarian about Utilitarianism. Bentham was all wet...Mill is only damp (actually, he wrote brilliantly against censorship "If all the world was of one opinion...") Tyrants and murderers DO have a purpose as Thomas Sowell so eloquently points out "even the worst of us can serve as a bad example." Hobbes was the ultimate pessimist. He believed that we should surrender all our liberties to the state to avoid a life "nasty, brutish and short." Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, is one of the more brilliant pieces on morality I have ever read (and it's much harder to digest than Leviathan). Smith held the Chair of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow for a number of years, he was an economist only in a very abstract sense. I do like Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic but beyond that all I can think of to say positive about him is that he was very punctual. We must also factor in that slaughter methods have improved immensely since Bentham...as odd as it may sound Hitler was responsible for many advancements toward the ethical treatment of food animals. Now I want a steak as well!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hobbes is often interpreted as being an absolute statist , but Harrington (2005) argues that it is the idea of liberty that puts Hobbes’s philosophy into full sensibility.
there is a quote from Hobbes that makesprfect sense in that regard
Harrington, R. (2005). Hobbes and liberty: the subject’s sphere of liberty in Leviathan. Retrieved from http://www.artificialhorizon.org
I will have to read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments; and it not surprising that Smtih delved into economics from a position of moral query; economics is directly tied to human happiness.
were doing fried rice for dinner. I should have written this article on steak night!
Smith was wrote the Wealth of Nations as a criticism of Mercantilism...his economic experience consisted of a brief stint as a customs official. He wrote Moral Sentiments much earlier (1752 I believe) and I believe it to be a moral blueprint to support his system of economics. As for Harrington's perspective on Hobbes, here's another view on the formation of the state and obligation of citizens.
: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938736
Olson is a remarkable guy, I saw him present this at the APSA conference in '93 when I was there presenting a paper on NAFTA...I think you'll enjoy his perspective.
here isthat file on pdf
http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Indra.de.Soysa/POL3503H05/olson.pdf
The JSTOR setup is a pin in thekeister, especially sine i don'thave theschool login anymore ;)
"The Grasping Hand"...perfect!
Thought you'd like it...that was supposed to be the pdf file I posted...I always said I'm no techie! lol
I'll add it to my Zotero library...I' about 4 months behind on it's maintenance anyway ;>
In my view, classical utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick/ Smart) shatters on the realization of what Adam Smith called the "vicarious affects" (e.g., sympathy). While the moral calculus of classical utilitarianism requires that "each is to count for one; no one for more than one," ordinary interpersonal bonds lead naturally to differential treatment. It is not only understandable but also morally right that a mother should give far greater weight to the interests of her child than the interests of a perfect stranger. But the moral calculus of Bentham only works if the parties involved are essentially interchangeable. We cannot with moral propriety ask that a person value the welfare or happiness of all fellow humans equally.