2 Sovereign Masters : Against hybrid ethics

There are at least a couple of rival theories to utilitarianism. These theories persist primarily because, in certain ethical scenarios, utilitarianism produces counterintuitive results at first glance. To address these cases, alternative theories are often introduced to provide more intuitive answers for specific scenarios.

1. I’ve argued in previous posts that these counterintuitive scenarios will gradually become intuitive as we reflect more clearly on the issues.
2. Alternative theories, such as deontology or variations of utilitarianism like objective list theory, are intrinsically improbable because they rely on arbitrary concepts. These theories introduce arbitrary ideas about rights and how to handle conflicting rights, or, in the case of objective list theory, they assign intrinsic value to a random list of things without a clear rationale.
3. Most of these alternative theories lead to absurd scenarios that are far more counterintuitive than the initial issues they were designed to resolve, and they provide no satisfactory explanation for these outcomes.

In many applied ethical questions, utilitarianism and deontology align and produce the same answers. However, in some cases, they diverge. People often find it convenient to adopt utilitarianism in situations where it aligns with their intuitions, while switching to deontology in cases where utilitarianism seems to conflict with those intuitions.

I believe this is the wrong approach to ethics.

We often use different theories in science, but with a critical distinction: we prioritize the more accurate theory when conflicts arise. For example, in everyday life, gravitational effects can be calculated accurately using Newton’s equations. Newtonian mechanics provides a highly practical and computationally efficient framework for describing the motion of objects on Earth and in many everyday applications. However, Newtonian mechanics breaks down when dealing with extreme conditions, such as very high speeds, strong gravitational fields, or precise planetary motions, like the precession of Mercury’s orbit. These phenomena can only be accurately explained using Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Einstein’s theory, while more comprehensive and accurate, is often unnecessary for routine calculations because Newton’s equations are simpler and sufficient for most practical purposes. When a conflict arises, however, we default to the better and more accurate theory—Einstein’s relativity.

The same logic applies to utilitarianism and its alternatives.

For example, saying “A woman has the right to wear whatever she prefers” is a much more convenient way of expressing the ethical principle than saying, “The pleasure caused by a woman wearing what she prefers, minus the suffering caused by it, is a higher value than the pleasure caused by her not wearing what she prefers, minus the suffering caused by that.”

This is why we often speak in the language of rights, duties, and laws. These frameworks are practical and easy to use in daily life.

However, when there is a conflict between ethical theories, we should prioritize the one that is more virtuous and consistent. In this regard, utilitarianism wins outright.