Why was Murray Rothbard strongly opposed to utilitarianism? Do you know of an article in which he discusses this? My guess is that he thought it got in the way of a proper application of the self-ownership and non-aggression principles.
i searched this site for Rothbard utilitarianism justice. and the 3rd link down gave http://mises.org/daily/2647
See The Ethics of Liberty, towards the back of the book (p. 206 in my copy), section C. Ludwig von Mises and “Value-Free” Laissez Faire."
Rothbard liked to bring up a specific example as to why he didn’t like utilitarianism.
Suppose there is a violent aversion towards redheads in a society. They are a small percentage of the population and the rest of the population is disgusted to the point of violence against them. Now according to a utiltiarian, it would be just for society to suddenly start killing off these redheads because the basic premise of utilitarianism is the maximization of society’s social pleasure.
Why didn’t I think of searching this site? [:$]
Thanks for the link, by the way.
That example is short-sighted. If they murder all of the red-heads, “society’s social pleasure” may be maximized shorttermly. However, longtermly, that act would remove a large amount of people from the division of labor and therefore decrease longterm standard of living.
[Y]
Or you could make any other analogous example, where economic loss cant possibly be high(ie killing ill, disabled, religious sacrifice or otherwise inferior people). The point is, murder is compatible with utilitarianism, even if you dont touch the inner contradictions of utilitarianism (like subjectivity of value etc)
Rothbard was opposed to utilitarianism because he was a philosophically opposed to it. He came to the conclusion of anarcho-capitalism from a natural rights perspective. That is not to say natural rights is the only avenue with which to come to this conclusion, as there are examples of utilitarian anarcho-capitalists, such as David Friedman. Utilitarianism can be used to justify aggression against the innocent, but that’s not to say they are necessarily right within their own framework. As I’m assuming you’ve picked up some economics/history on here, you probably know how utilitarians in economics tend to miss what is unseen in their consequences.
Utilitarian arguments, if properly applied, can lead to similar conclusions as natural law ones. The problem is that most academics take a very narrow view of social costs and benefits. They totally ignore “government failure” and focus only on alleged “market failure”, for instance.
Ron Paul on Natural Rights (Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul)
Quote:
| Though Mises states that the “idea of natural law is quite arbitrary,” I might suggest that so are the interpretations of utility. Inflation is very “useful” to those in power. Only a concept of natural rights can condemn the “perceived” utility of interventionism. |
|---|
Quote:
| Every argument I have ever heard on the House floor is presented as utilitarian and—for the pressure groups represented— the proposals certainly are “utilitarian.” These arguments are never based on the moral principles of people’s natural right to run their own lives. Santa Claus wins the “utilitarian” argument until it’s too late to do anything about it. |
|---|
Quote:
| In the absence of a natural rights argument, a moral vacuum exists, into which the socialists rush, winning every time. They have won throughout the 20th century, while the concept of God-given rights has been almost obliterated. Austerity for the benefit of the next generation won’t get enough votes in a democratic political system. Combine it with a moral argument for natural rights, and the chances of success are greatly enhanced. |
|---|
Quote:
| Without Austrian economics, I would not have had my political career. The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still prefer my personal freedom to coercion. Fortunately, I don’t need to make a choice. Austrian economics upholds the market’s efficiency, and that reinforces my overwhelming desire and right to be free. |
|---|
Quote:
When one argues for the free market on utilitarian grounds, one starts with particular actions by the individual. In starting with a natural rights argument the “a priori” becomes “the gift of life and liberty” as natural or God-given. |
|---|
I’ve read Ron Paul’s book on Mises (that chapter at least). I don’t remember that he ever wrote on why we have natural rights. One must start out using utilitarianism to get to natural rights. Murray Rothbard uses utilitarianism to prove the principle of self-ownership.
[^o)]
Ah…what?
Remember redheads are a small percentage of the population, so even if all of them were killed off, a relatively large amount of people would not be removed from the division of labor. Also, you are assuming that the aversion “society” has for redheads does not make them unemployable in the first place.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears Rothbard uses the concept of “the greatest good for the greatest number”, i.e., the good of society, to prove the natural right to self-ownership.
Nope. Rothbard believes that the right to self-ownership is axiomatic.
Okay. I’d really like to link to an article in which he says this.
For Statists, yes, looking only at consequences invites injustices.