Utilitarianism and libertarianism

Believe it or not, the radically different philosophies of libertarianism and utilitarianism are actually connected. Utilitarianism focuses on “the greatest good,” and the idea that the moral worth of an action is related to its overall utility. Libertarianism is seemly unconnected, as it deals with maximizing civil liberties and reducing government interference in the social sphere.

However, the two have far more in common than meets the eye. Enter “preference utilitarianism,” the belief that utilitarianism is best fulfilled by examining through the eyes of “preference satisfaction.” Because each person’s preferences are different, preference satisfaction is not one-size-fits-all—instead of emphasizing a single solution like classical utilitarianism, it is much more tailored to individuals.

This is where libertarianism comes in. In order to allow people to fulfill their own preferences, it would be more desirable for a society to maximize civil liberties. This way, instead of the much-criticized draconian or fascist brands of utilitarianism, people are allowed to pursue their version of happiness in their own way.

But where does it stop? Should people be allowed to harm or kill others if they so desire? Should certain people be allowed to possess nuclear weapons if that is their version of satisfaction? On a large scale, it is obvious that one person harming multiple people is unethical according to utilitarianism and should therefore be prevented. On a smaller scale, though, this becomes a tricky question in utilitarian ethics. Consider the following example: Person A is harming Person B, which is causing Person A the same amount of happiness as it is causing Person B unhappiness. Because the two cancel each other out, intervention would seem to be unethical according to utilitarianism. Act utilitarian would probably state that even though it is in the common good to prevent people from harming others, the particular scenario I mentioned is ethically neutral. Rule utilitarians, however, would most likely consider the scenario morally wrong (assuming that “don’t harm others” is one of their ethical rules). Even so, it is a thorny problem that highlights the consequences of utilitarian ethics.

Additionally, preference utilitarianism—and particularly the libertarian version of it—are far more “less than perfect” than the idealistic vision flaunted by classical utilitarianism. Though this may deter classical utilitarians (especially act utilitarians) from supporting it, utilitarianism has always been criticized for being to utopian to be realistic—perhaps libertarian utilitarianism is a reasonable middle ground. Also, utilitarianism is often not egalitarian because of the repugnant conclusion—however, libertarianism corrects this, as libertarianism focuses on equal civil liberties. Though it diverges from the traditional definition of utilitarianism, I believe that libertarian preference utilitarianism is a viable and practical way to achieve “the greatest good.”