Was Robin Hood a utilitarian?

Milton Friedman usually argued that companies ought to think about maximizing income, and never spend sources on different social targets. He was as soon as requested if this meant that companies ought to do evil issues if it led to larger income. Friedman fairly sensibly responded that companies ought to maximize income below the constraint that they adhere to authorized and moral norms.

This jogs my memory of the latest dialogue about whether or not Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) was implementing utilitarianism in his try to get wealthy and donate a lot of cash to charity.  Some even declare that the latest failure of FTX in some way reveals a flaw in utilitarianism.  There are a variety of issues with this declare.

1. To start with the apparent, what proof is there that SBF was a utilitarian?  It’s true that he sometimes claimed to have altruistic motives, however at different instances he made statements that appeared to contradict this view.  Lately, he principally admitted that a lot of what he mentioned was merely PR, not reflecting his precise beliefs.  Extra importantly, can we depend on the phrase of an individual that claims to hunt wealth for altruistic causes?  I’ve met many individuals that claimed to be beneficiant, however actually had been fairly egocentric.  Oddly, those who attempt to hyperlink SBF with utilitarianism additionally appear to consider he was a fraud, a type of con man. There’s a time period for those who belief con males who profess to have altruistic motives.  They’re referred to as “marks”. 

As an apart, I’ve no particular information that SBF dedicated fraud.  I do know that he’s been tried and convicted by the media, and I’ve no cause to suspect that that view is inaccurate.  The place there’s smoke, there’s normally fireplace.  However I’m old style—harmless till confirmed responsible.  Woody Allen was additionally tried and convicted by the media, and but there’s not a lot precise proof for his guilt.  Nonetheless, I’m going to imagine SBF’s responsible for the sake of argument.  Let’s say he did commit fraud—what does that say about utilitarianism? 

2. Let’s suppose that SBF is a honest utilitarian.  Does that show that there’s some type of flaw in utilitarianism?  Under no circumstances, for a number of causes.  To start with, folks usually make errors.  Suppose a farmer rejected utilitarianism and had the “pure rights” view of the world.  He believed that property rights had been sacred.  Now assume that the farmer shot at some youngsters that trespassed onto his land.  That’s clearly an overreaction.  Ought to we then blame those who advocate the pure rights view of the world?  Clearly not, as on this case there have been different rights at stake, together with the appropriate to life.  The farmer misjudged the implications of his moral system.  To take one other instance, the terrorists of 9/11 might need believed they had been in response to the beliefs of Islam, however that doesn’t make it true.  Equally, SBF might need believed he was implementing utilitarian concepts (though I doubt it), however that doesn’t make it true.  There are delusional folks inside any ideology.

3.  Those that hyperlink SBF’s conduct to utilitarianism usually appear to make use of the Robin Hood protection.  He stole from the wealthy to assist the poor.  However Robin Hood is a kids’s story, not a severe information to moral conduct.  All societies want constant guidelines to information conduct, they usually want these guidelines for good utilitarian causes.  Simply think about if there have been no 1st Modification to the US Structure.  Assume that each single information article needed to be pre-approved by the US authorities.  I consider that this method would have disastrous penalties, and I think that you just agree with me.  And but it most likely is the case that there are just a few articles that society could be higher off not having seen revealed.  As a result of we don’t belief the federal government to isolate these articles, and to let the remaining undergo, we’ve determined that it makes extra sense to have a blanket provision permitting freedom of the press.

One might think about a legislation that mentioned, “Fraud is against the law, besides in circumstances the place the beneficiary of fraud achieves extra profit that the sufferer loses.”  At first look, that may look like a utilitarian method to legislation.  As an alternative, all fraud is seen as unlawful, and for 2 excellent causes.  First, if the legislation had been made conditional on the distributional penalties of the crime, then it will be tough for folks to know forward of time in the event that they had been breaking the legislation.  Extra importantly, this ignores the entire adverse unwanted side effects of crime.  Common folks view the price of theft when it comes to the loss to the sufferer.  However to an economist, that’s only a switch.  Economists emphasize that the massive deadweight price of crime comes from the hassle expended to keep away from changing into a sufferer.  Society devotes an enormous quantity of sources to crime prevention, of which issues like door locks are merely the tip of the iceberg.  Individuals rearrange their lives in all kinds of how to keep away from being victimized.  As well as, unhealthy guys commit huge sources to perpetrating crimes.  The deadweight losses on this “arms race” actually add up, making a excessive crime society a a lot worse place to stay.

I think that SBF’s fraud, if it occurred, made the world worse off.  So by probably the most primary take a look at of utilitarianism it failed to attain its goal.  The counterargument is that one might think about a hypothetical crime that made society higher off.  However that’s not what I see SBF’s critics saying on this case.  I’ve but to learn a single article claiming, “SBF made the world a happier place, however what he did was improper.”  Most individuals appear to consider he made issues worse.

Nonetheless, allow us to suppose {that a} future SBF does in some way engineer a profitable fraud that enhances world utility, even accounting for the truth that fraud reduces financial effectivity as a result of deterioration of belief in our monetary system, a price that’s above and past the direct loss to victims.  Let’s think about a profitable “Robin Hood” escapade.  What ought to utilitarians consider that act?

I’m a guidelines utilitarian, as guidelines usually make mixture utility larger.  I consider we needs to be a nation of legal guidelines, not a rustic the place each motion is judged in response to somebody’s (whose?) thought of its influence on mixture utility.  Thus I consider a prison needs to be prosecuted even within the odd case the place the crime has a internet optimistic profit to society.

Contemplate a case the place a person rushes his pregnant spouse to the hospital, as she’s about to offer start.  He parks the automobile outdoors in an unlawful spot.  He has clearly determined that on this case the advantage of the “crime” (misdemeanor on this case) exceeds the price of a parking ticket.  That’s a rational utilitarian determination.  However discover that in that case he needs to be prepared to pay the parking ticket.  Our system of parking tickets most likely works higher if we’ve got a blanket prohibition on parking in unlawful spots, somewhat than evaluating every individual’s “excuse” individually.  Equally, our legal guidelines on fraud work finest if it’s at all times unlawful, not unlawful solely when the funds aren’t redistributed to the poor.  A society with clear and clear guidelines works finest—even in utilitarian phrases.

To summarize:

1. Guidelines needs to be clear and uniform, and never make case-by-case distinctions primarily based on laborious to measure utilitarian concerns.  Individuals have to know, ex ante, if their actions are authorized.

2. Often, will probably be the case that breaking guidelines has a optimistic internet impact, particularly for minor crimes like parking violations.  However even in these circumstances, guidelines needs to be enforced and parking fines paid.  That’s how we guarantee that the violator had a honest justification for his motion.

3.  Inevitably, some utilitarians will wrongly assume that sure actions enhance mixture utility, ignoring the corrosive results of crime on a society’s effectively being and considering solely when it comes to redistribution.  Critical crime has a serious adverse sum impact on complete welfare, no less than within the overwhelming majority of circumstances.

PS.  Many individuals will argue that my “guidelines” method is just not “true utilitarianism”, simply as they could see Milton’s Friedman’s suggestion that companies behave ethically as not being “true revenue maximization”.  However these are simply phrase video games.  I’m advocating the philosophical method that I consider maximizes mixture utility.  It makes no distinction to me what label folks want to place on that method.  Is my method per the standard definition of utilitarianism?  Maybe somebody can examine whether or not folks like John Stuart Mill advocated fraud.  I somewhat doubt it.