A question about Anarchy and Utilitarianism

[Wildhoney]

Hi there, I'm new to the forum and figured I'd start off by asking a question which has been plaguing me. As a bit of background, I identify as an Anarchist, but don't identify with any particular strand at the moment, as I don't feel I know enough yet to be any more specific about beliefs. The mass of information availible has made figuring things out a confusing task, but right now I'm reading a collection of Anarchist writings called Patterns of Anarchy which I found at a used bookstore in hopes of educating myself a bit. I'm a bit stultified by clinical depression problems which result in lack of sleep (it's past 5:30 AM here, and I should be sleeping, but instead I'm sitting in the empty bathtub, typing this post), lack of energy and all sorts of general annoyances which has made it hard for me to pursue interests. As I said, I'm trying to pursue Anarchist literature again, and here I am, asking questions, hoping you'll be able to help me out a bit.

Anyway...

To what extent is Anarchy of any form compatible with Utilitarian philosophy? I've read some of Peter Singer's work and have found it to be a very sensible form of ethics, and it seems like it would have some compatability with Anarchism, but I'd like the opinions of more knowledgable individuals.

[Diagoras]

It has some room for compatibility, depending upon what form of utilitarianism you are talking about. There are a number of forms of modified utilitarianisms that re-interpret what "utility" actually is, given that the simplified early maxim of "the greatest good for the greatest number" has been recognized to be rather inadequate by itself. Singer is a "preference utilitarian" where "good" is defined as the satisfaction of individual preferences, and thus social relations that obstruct the achievement of individual desires are seen as unacceptable.

Certainly anarchists would agree with the sentiments of the "great good" possible, and seek to institute social organization based upon the maximization of said good. Indeed, you could very well make a good case for anarchism and its principles through utilitarian means. You could argue that concentrations of power for some over others have demonstrably revealed that hierarchical social organization (embodied in capitalism and the state) does not produce the greatest good, and thus direct democratic and consensus models could produce a system most conducive to the meeting of the needs for everyone involved. Peter Singer, while not an anarchist, considers himself a Leftist of some sort based upon similar preference utilitarian criticisms of capitalism.

There are, of course, aspects of utilitarian thought that have been utilized by more reactionary characters that would not be compatible with anarchism. "Average Utilitarianism" advocates the achievement of the highest average utility in a group. This is often interpreted by capitalists of various stripes in defense of class stratification. As long as capitalism, it is alleged, can produce greater economic growth and a higher average utility, then that is the best we can hope for. The downsides of such an argument, of course, become a bit more obvious when we apply 5th grade math. If you have 10 people in a group, 9 are homeless with no income, and one makes 10 million dollars a year, then an averaging of their group income would consider them all millionaires for purposes of utility, and such a society could be considered morally better than one in which everyone made, say $40,000 dollars a year.

So, it depends on its flavor and its application. I personally enjoy Singer, especially his defense of abortion, and how he extends the same general utilitarian principle to defend wealth equalization. Some of the older "founding" figures of utilitarianism can be seen as quite opposed to anarchist goals, however.

[Decolonize The Left]

Hi there, I'm new to the forum and figured I'd start off by asking a question which has been plaguing me. As a bit of background, I identify as an Anarchist, but don't identify with any particular strand at the moment, as I don't feel I know enough yet to be any more specific about beliefs.

I find that it's best to avoid debates over 'strands' of anything: anarchism, communism, etc... The general idea is all that matters at this point. Seeing as how a worldwide revolution is not within sight, it is pointless to debate different ideas as to the 'post-revolution' when our energies would be better spent developing class consciousness.


The mass of information availible has made figuring things out a confusing task, but right now I'm reading a collection of Anarchist writings called Patterns of Anarchy which I found at a used bookstore in hopes of educating myself a bit. I'm a bit stultified by clinical depression problems which result in lack of sleep (it's past 5:30 AM here, and I should be sleeping, but instead I'm sitting in the empty bathtub, typing this post), lack of energy and all sorts of general annoyances which has made it hard for me to pursue interests. As I said, I'm trying to pursue Anarchist literature again, and here I am, asking questions, hoping you'll be able to help me out a bit.

You might consider checking out the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/making-sense-anarchism-t6416/index.html).
If you are interested in Anarchist literature, this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-t100177/index.html) has many possibilities.
I would personally recommend What is Anarchism? by Alexander Berkman, and Anarchism by Emma Goldman as perfect introductory (as well as canonical) pieces.


Anyway...

To what extent is Anarchy of any form compatible with Utilitarian philosophy? I've read some of Peter Singer's work and have found it to be a very sensible form of ethics, and it seems like it would have some compatability with Anarchism, but I'd like the opinions of more knowledgable individuals.

Diagoras' response above covered this pretty well.

Anarchism is a political/social theory.
Utilitarianism is a specific ethical theory.
Anarchism can be qualified as many things, but the question which you are asking is whether or not anarchists justify their anarchism through utilitarian means. This is, of course, a relative question as some certainly do and others certainly don't.

- August

[Reclaimed Dasein]

It has some room for compatibility, depending upon what form of utilitarianism you are talking about. There are a number of forms of modified utilitarianisms that re-interpret what "utility" actually is, given that the simplified early maxim of "the greatest good for the greatest number" has been recognized to be rather inadequate by itself. Singer is a "preference utilitarian" where "good" is defined as the satisfaction of individual preferences, and thus social relations that obstruct the achievement of individual desires are seen as unacceptable.

Certainly anarchists would agree with the sentiments of the "great good" possible, and seek to institute social organization based upon the maximization of said good. Indeed, you could very well make a good case for anarchism and its principles through utilitarian means. You could argue that concentrations of power for some over others have demonstrably revealed that hierarchical social organization (embodied in capitalism and the state) does not produce the greatest good, and thus direct democratic and consensus models could produce a system most conducive to the meeting of the needs for everyone involved. Peter Singer, while not an anarchist, considers himself a Leftist of some sort based upon similar preference utilitarian criticisms of capitalism.

There are, of course, aspects of utilitarian thought that have been utilized by more reactionary characters that would not be compatible with anarchism. "Average Utilitarianism" advocates the achievement of the highest average utility in a group. This is often interpreted by capitalists of various stripes in defense of class stratification. As long as capitalism, it is alleged, can produce greater economic growth and a higher average utility, then that is the best we can hope for. The downsides of such an argument, of course, become a bit more obvious when we apply 5th grade math. If you have 10 people in a group, 9 are homeless with no income, and one makes 10 million dollars a year, then an averaging of their group income would consider them all millionaires for purposes of utility, and such a society could be considered morally better than one in which everyone made, say $40,000 dollars a year.

So, it depends on its flavor and its application. I personally enjoy Singer, especially his defense of abortion, and how he extends the same general utilitarian principle to defend wealth equalization. Some of the older "founding" figures of utilitarianism can be seen as quite opposed to anarchist goals, however.
I generally agree with this post quite well. However, utilitarian calculus can't easily be appropriated by capitalist because of the law of diminishing returns. 10,000,000 would have to be shown as giving a significant amount of happiness over 5,000,000 or even 1,000,000. So, that sort of reasoning doesn't hold. The upshot of this is Capitalism doesn't work well with ethical theories. Surprise surprise.

I actually think that utilitarianism works best with anarchism because the strictures of state power are always subject to individual preference. Thus the political situation is reduced to "the people" as preferential agents.

However, as a deontologist I have to side with vanguardist revolutionary communism. For the me, the relevant features are equality and justice not preference or happiness. I think communism as a matter of fact will bring about more happiness than capitalism I still advocate for it even if it didn't. Let Justice reign though the world may perish.

[Diagoras]

I generally agree with this post quite well. However, utilitarian calculus can't easily be appropriated by capitalist because of the law of diminishing returns. 10,000,000 would have to be shown as giving a significant amount of happiness over 5,000,000 or even 1,000,000. So, that sort of reasoning doesn't hold. The upshot of this is Capitalism doesn't work well with ethical theories. Surprise surprise.

I certainly agree. I am simply reporting what I have encountered in my discussions with capitalists, especially those of the Libertarian Party variety, that like to argue that unfettered capitalism leads to "Pareto optimality" and meets the needs for most people. Of course, how they determine needs and the achievement of said needs ignores the structural and ideological forces at work that shape needs.


I actually think that utilitarianism works best with anarchism because the strictures of state power are always subject to individual preference. Thus the political situation is reduced to "the people" as preferential agents.There are a number of facets of present social organization that can indeed be effectively criticized by anarchists through a utilitarian lens. We would indeed be crippling ourselves by not referring to the consequences of the state and capitalism.


However, as a deontologist I have to side with vanguardist revolutionary communism. For the me, the relevant features are equality and justice not preference or happiness. I think communism as a matter of fact will bring about more happiness than capitalism I still advocate for it even if it didn't. Let Justice reign though the world may perish.There are plenty of deontologists in the anarchist camp as well, but I am curious now as to your views. If you could define what you mean by "vanguardist revolutionary communism", I would appreciate it. I don't want to assume anything, especially given the aversion we anarchist folk have to many notions of the "vanguard". At least from my perspective, I agree that communism would bring about more happiness for more people... but largely as a consequence of it being more equal and more just. By not having rulers and ruled in the traditional hierarchical sense, and by organizing the economy to meet the needs for personal fulfillment of all (as long as said fulfillment does not trample on the same rights of others), happiness would be greater than now, and it would be more just. I am curious as to your statement:


I think communism as a matter of fact will bring about more happiness than capitalism I still advocate for it even if it didn't.What do you mean by this? I do not think it would be the case, given that production for needs rather than profit would suddenly end the hunger and malnutrition that 2/3rds of the world experiences, but how are you defining happiness? When "happiness" is used, especially in something like preferential utilitarianism, it is referring more to the meeting of needs/desires: simply joy, yes, but also personal fulfillment, goals, non-exploitation, etc... all of which require equality and justice to be met adequately for all.

Last thing for now. Assuming you are referring to a more Leninist model of the "vanguard party" rather than the implementation of direct democratic structures, do you not find a conflict between the effective (and real) implementation of equality and justice and the retention of concentrated power in the hands of certain people over others?

:cool:Get back to me

[Potemkin]

Greetings,

It looks like quite a good discussion is taking place here. I don't have much to add, although I think it might help Wildhoney to know that one of the theoretical forefathers of anarchism, William Godwin, was a utilitarian. In some ways, anarchism can trace its roots to this theory.

[apathy maybe]

To throw my three cents into the pot.

Anarchism is about the act rather than the consequence, the means justify the ends, rather than the ends justify the means.

Anarchists are against hierarchy, because hierarchy is bad.

Utilitarianism tends to look the consequences, hierarchy is bad, because it makes people unhappy, it is inefficient, etc.

I would suggest that preference utilitarianism, is compatible with anarchism.

I am pretty sure I know what I mean, except that I'm having lots of trouble putting it down. Hopefully you know what I mean.

(Incidentally, the liberal/utilitarian "conflict" has a similar ending. Liberals believe that there are certain inalienable rights, utilitarians are looking for the greatest utility. Lots of utilitarians were liberals, because they thought that these "rights" provide the greatest utility. But certainly, not all liberals are utilitarians.)

(I just did a search on Google to see if I could find some other info, this thread showed up at number six on my search.)
(Something else I turned up is: http://www.slimcoincidence.com/blog/2004/11/ethics_final_project_prospectu.php )

[Blackscare]

Anarchism is about the act rather than the consequence, the means justify the ends, rather than the ends justify the means.



That's a lopsided description. It implies all anarchists want is a lack of state, with no ideas as to what should be achieved when the state is brought down. I understand what you said in the context of a comparison to utilitarianism, but in making that contrast you're painting anarchism with a broad brush.

Of course anarchism is very focused on ethics, so the ends wouldn't justify the means. But that's just one side of the coin. Most anarchists (like myself, a platformist) do have an end of some sort in mind. I for one don't believe in anarchism no matter the consequence, if the consequence would be chaos and death for instance.

[apathy maybe]

That's a lopsided description. It implies all anarchists want is a lack of state, with no ideas as to what should be achieved when the state is brought down. I understand what you said in the context of a comparison to utilitarianism, but in making that contrast you're painting anarchism with a broad brush.
I don't really get tired of saying, anarchism is very very broad. There are a few core ideas that hold all anarchists together (against hierarchy, for freedom), and that's it. That's why you get such a variety.


Of course anarchism is very focused on ethics, so the ends wouldn't justify the means. But that's just one side of the coin. Most anarchists (like myself, a platformist) do have an end of some sort in mind. I for one don't believe in anarchism no matter the consequence, if the consequence would be chaos and death for instance.
Yeah, I did say I had trouble describing what I meant.

I don't think you should say "most", because that's a weasel word. You've got no stats. Are platformists anarchists actually? Are you anti-hierarchy, pro-freedom because you think these ideas are good? Or do you support these ideas because of what they might bring? You seem to suggest that actually you want these things because they would bring about a good society, rather than being good in and of themselves.

If you were guaranteed the perfect society (as you envisage) across the world, if you would just first press a button to kill a city full of (comparatively innocent) people, would you do it?

What about if you would first just press a button killing all the high ranking government, military and commercial folks?

What's the difference? In the second situation, it could (or could not) be justified through the self defense argument (not all anarchists, particularly pacifists, agree with this argument). These people would be killed, or removed from power, come a revolution regardless. The city full of innocents? They would not have died in a revolutionary situation.

From a utilitarian perspective, it might be plausible to do both acts (kill the city, and the bosses). From a deontological anarchist perspective, the first is completely out, the second may or may not be.

[Wildhoney]

Sorry for how long it's taken to me to respond. I really appreciate the excellent responses you guys have given.


Singer is a "preference utilitarian" where "good" is defined as the satisfaction of individual preferences, and thus social relations that obstruct the achievement of individual desires are seen as unacceptable.

This was really the vein of Utilitarianism I was mainly thinking of and it was incredibly silly of me not to specify.


Certainly anarchists would agree with the sentiments of the "great good" possible, and seek to institute social organization based upon the maximization of said good. Indeed, you could very well make a good case for anarchism and its principles through utilitarian means. You could argue that concentrations of power for some over others have demonstrably revealed that hierarchical social organization (embodied in capitalism and the state) does not produce the greatest good, and thus direct democratic and consensus models could produce a system most conducive to the meeting of the needs for everyone involved. Peter Singer, while not an anarchist, considers himself a Leftist of some sort based upon similar preference utilitarian criticisms of capitalism. Precisely. Singer actually says that the Communist model of each from his ability to his need is the rational conclusion of his Utilitarian model of ethics, though he doubts it's possibility as a reality. I came to Anarchism and Utilitarianism seperately and consider that form of Utilitarianism to be a real basis for my world view and analysis after rational consideration. Given that my Anarchist views need an equally rational basis I used the Utilitarian base and the most logical conclusion seemed to me Anarchism. I'm glad I wasn't really off base as far as that.


There are, of course, aspects of utilitarian thought that have been utilized by more reactionary characters that would not be compatible with anarchism. "Average Utilitarianism" advocates the achievement of the highest average utility in a group. This is often interpreted by capitalists of various stripes in defense of class stratification. As long as capitalism, it is alleged, can produce greater economic growth and a higher average utility, then that is the best we can hope for. The downsides of such an argument, of course, become a bit more obvious when we apply 5th grade math. If you have 10 people in a group, 9 are homeless with no income, and one makes 10 million dollars a year, then an averaging of their group income would consider them all millionaires for purposes of utility, and such a society could be considered morally better than one in which everyone made, say $40,000 dollars a year. I'd say that that isn't the most logical form of Utilitarianism. I'm sure that the homeless people deserved it, of course, which is why it's fair. :rolleyes:



You might consider checking out the Anarchist FAQ.
If you are interested in Anarchist literature, this thread has many possibilities.
I would personally recommend What is Anarchism? by Alexander Berkman, and Anarchism by Emma Goldman as perfect introductory (as well as canonical) pieces.

Thank you for the suggestions, though I know of the FAQ and have read fair bits of it.



However, as a deontologist I have to side with vanguardist revolutionary communism. For the me, the relevant features are equality and justice not preference or happiness. I think communism as a matter of fact will bring about more happiness than capitalism

I don't see why deontology needs to lead directly to vanguardism. Plenty of Anarchists are deontologists.


I still advocate for it even if it didn't. Let Justice reign though the world may perish. This is one of the reasons I have problems with deontology and arrived at teleology. Justice is pointless if there's no world for it to be Just in.



Greetings,

It looks like quite a good discussion is taking place here. I don't have much to add, although I think it might help Wildhoney to know that one of the theoretical forefathers of anarchism, William Godwin, was a utilitarian. In some ways, anarchism can trace its roots to this theory.

Thank you for the information Potemkin. I'll see whether I can find some of his writing anywhere nearby.



Anarchism is about the act rather than the consequence, the means justify the ends, rather than the ends justify the means.

Any particular reason for saying this? Feel free to disagree (and please state why), because it would only expedite my learning, but I like Benjamin Tucker's description of Anarchism as "the doctrine that all affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." It seems like whether you come at it teleologically or deontologically is less important than the fact that, in the end, you stand for freedom, whether you believe it to be people's basic right or to be the best way to bring about happiness and fulfillment.


Anarchists are against hierarchy, because hierarchy is bad.

Utilitarianism tends to look the consequences, hierarchy is bad, because it makes people unhappy, it is inefficient, etc.Well, you have to give a reason why hierarchy is bad.


I would suggest that preference utilitarianism, is compatible with anarchism.The thought that lead me to create the thread exactly.


I am pretty sure I know what I mean, except that I'm having lots of trouble putting it down. Hopefully you know what I mean.I think I do. I hope you can tell by my responses.



If you were guaranteed the perfect society (as you envisage) across the world, if you would just first press a button to kill a city full of (comparatively innocent) people, would you do it?

What about if you would first just press a button killing all the high ranking government, military and commercial folks?

What's the difference? In the second situation, it could (or could not) be justified through the self defense argument (not all anarchists, particularly pacifists, agree with this argument). These people would be killed, or removed from power, come a revolution regardless. The city full of innocents? They would not have died in a revolutionary situation.

From a utilitarian perspective, it might be plausible to do both acts (kill the city, and the bosses). From a deontological anarchist perspective, the first is completely out, the second may or may not be.

That seems quite evident but I'm not sure how that makes the teleological approach to Anarchism any less Anarchic.

Again, thank you for the excellent responses.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

This isn't completely thought out in argument form, but I'd figure I'd give it a shot. I must admit I'm not an expert on preference utilitarianism more than expanding utility to include various preferences, and I'm more than happy to be instructed on preference utilitarianism if my provisional critique doesn't seem salient. However, I think my positive argument for deontology and vanguardism for the true strength of my argument.

The first premise is that the subject is the site of ethical activity. I hold that the subject decides. Ethics consists in having a principle and expressing fidelity to it. The decision is ethical insofar as it upholds the principle. In this sense, the subject exists as the site of ethical activity.

Most object to this premise in two different ways. First, people hold that actions or consequences and not subjects exist as the site of ethical activity. Secondly, some object to the concept of a subject as such.

In the first case, they may be right to situation the evaluation of ethical activity in actions, the site of ethical activity must still be in the subject performing those activities, even if the subject is only virtual. Otherwise, we are left without the ability to make ethical choices because all choices will be condemned to an ethically opaque and resistant world. This position renders ethics as little more than a science of the vicissitudes of fortune.

If one rejects the subject as such then one rejects to possibility of action as such. Now, I must situation myself clearly. I'm willing to accept the subject stands as fragile, fragmented, and transitory. The revolutionary subject remains the most illusive of all possible subjects. However, if no subject can ever arise, and if we exist only as unchanging objects or waves of determined power then we can take no action. We must exist as nothing more than empty puppets pulled by the strings of an irrevokable fate. So, we must assert a subject to make any action possible.

Secondly, collectivities may be subjects. In this case, one should view actions as not simply people making ethical dicisions either individual or as an aggrigate. Rather the collectivity as a subject makes a decision. When a military goest to war, every individual and related decision make has an ethical position as a subjects in regards to the miltiary as a subject. The recognition of the efficacy of abstract entitites seperates dialectical materialsm from other forms of empty materialism.

Third, the ethical decision entails a correspondance to an ethical demand. In this case, the subject must fulfil the requirements. However, it must be clear that simply because one has an ethical demand does not entail that it necessarly entails knowledge of the correct decision. This is the true meaning of autonomy. We must have the freedom and responsibility to carry out our duty (obligation).

Fourth, their then must be a social subject to carry out the ethical duty and the ethical decision. This must entail an agent who can make decisions. This seems to be the site where deontology and consequentialism part ways.

Under consequentialism, we simply form an aggrigate of preferences in order to "decide." However, then the decision really remains a quantitative mechanism of preference. In this case, we're left with the absurd conclusion that the true ethical and revolutionary subject must the be mechanism itself!

In this case, it seems clear that revolutionaries must create a subject. I make no hard and fast rules about who or what comprises this subject, but ultimately it must have the ability to make a soverign decision. This entity which comprises the revolutionary subject should be understood as the vanguard. It must make the decisions without any abandonment of responsibility either to its ethical duty or to its own moral status as an actor. Where as, utilitarians may abandon themselves to the responsiblity of the mechanism, true deontologist and revolutionaries must assume responsibility for all actions, even if the consequences of which spiral out of control.

In this case, I see deontology and vanguardism as linked in the creation of the revolutionary subject and the revolutionary action (decision). Utilitarianism seems inherently insufficient because it does not acknowledge the demands of ethical responsibility and ethical obligation.

I eagerly await your reply.

[apathy maybe]

Any particular reason for saying this? Feel free to disagree (and please state why), because it would only expedite my learning, but I like Benjamin Tucker's description of Anarchism as "the doctrine that all affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." It seems like whether you come at it teleologically or deontologically is less important than the fact that, in the end, you stand for freedom, whether you believe it to be people's basic right or to be the best way to bring about happiness and fulfillment.
Hierarchy is bad because it conflicts with the view that humans should be free to manage their own affairs. Freedom (so long as it doesn't conflict with other's freedom), is the most important thing.

But, you can't get to freedom by using non-free means. That is a theoretical idea, that it is, we don't believe that it is possible to get to freedom using non-free means. But, it is also an ideological idea, that is, it is wrong to use non-free means to get to freedom.

The philosophical anarchist would reject blowing up the city of innocents to achieve a perfect society, because it is wrong. Even if it would work.

[Wildhoney]

Dasein and apathy, I plan on responding to both of you, but it might take me a day or two. Don't think I've neglected the thread, I just wanted to warn you I'm a bit busy.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Dasein and apathy, I plan on responding to both of you, but it might take me a day or two. Don't think I've neglected the thread, I just wanted to warn you I'm a bit busy.
Ah not at all. The very benefit of a BBS is that you can respond to it at your leisure. I'm a little surprised I didn't get mobbed by anarchists though.

[Invariance]

I generally agree with this post quite well. However, utilitarian calculus can't easily be appropriated by capitalist because of the law of diminishing returns.

You're almost entirely wrong; neoclassical economics is entirely built on the framework of Bentham's utilitarianism (they modified it slightly when they found that, surprise surprise, something so subjective like utility cannot be measured cardinally, least of all aggregated cardinally (or aggregated at all)). The so-called 'law of diminishing returns' fits perfectly well with utilitarianism. They accept both models.

Here is what Bentham said:

'The community is a fictitious body, composed of the individual persons who are considered as constituting as it were its members. The interests of the community then, is what? - the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it. It is in vain to talk of the interest of the community without understanding what is in the interest of the individual.'

He was saying what Thatcher was saying two hundred years later: 'There is no such thing as society.'