RE: Utilitarianism - a logic based morality
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
The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them.
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.