A recent article by David Gordon [1] discussing What We Owe the Future by William MacAskill on utilitarian ethics got me thinking about the absurdity of cardinal utility theory. Even from a layman’s perspective, the strangeness of cardinal utility seems like a good reason to believe there is something seriously wrong with its premises. It leads to ideas such as a dictator made so happy by enslaving others that he outweighs all negatives, as well as other bizarre conclusions, including the “sadistic conclusion [2],” and the “repugnant conclusion [3],” which both involve optimizing utility in groups. However, academics persist at papering over these conclusions and justifying all kinds of horrifying policies. This suggests some kind of perverse desire that I don’t fully understand. I suppose the title “Professor of Ethical Philosophy” is more attractive than “Professor of Genocide Planning,” but aside from that I don’t see the appeal.
Categories