NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking about an example from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" in Economics class the other day when I suddenly realized that the example had more significant meaning than simply being a tool in her argument about the benefits of Laissez-Faire capitalism and the detrimental nature of communism. Rand's example is as follows (paraphrased by me):


A factory employs 100 workers.
The factory needs to reach a quota of 1000 cars produced each month.
By the end of the month, the factory has only produced 950 cars.[/li]
The factory selects the three most productive workers to assemble the remaining 50 cars in overtime, which takes 20 hours. It would take the 20 least productive workers that same amount of time to produce the same 50 cars.
Thus, the factory is being more utilitarian and efficient because only 3 workers are adversely affected instead of 20, and a smaller number of workers are forced to work overtime.
This measure, though practical for the factory and utilitarian by definition, is injust because it rewards laziness or incapability while punishing productivity.

Let's keep a few things ceteris paribus here:
1) The workers do not enjoy producing cars, nor do they enjoy working overtime.
2) Utilitarianism means roughly 'for the greater good' and not 'for the greater good without marginalizing the majority'.
3) The factory management does not assign specific quotas to each worker, just as long as the full quota is reached at the end of the month (irresponsible, yes).
4) The workers act in their own self-interest. In this case, their self-interest has led them to work here because there is the lowest possible opportunity cost, and their overtime work does not affect this.

So what does everyone think about this conflict between two ideals?

I sidestep the problem by not believing in utilitarianism at all.

I was thinking about an example from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" in Economics class the other day when I suddenly realized that the example had more significant meaning than simply being a tool in her argument about the benefits of Laissez-Faire capitalism and the detrimental nature of communism. Rand's example is as follows (paraphrased by me):


A factory employs 100 workers.
The factory needs to reach a quota of 1000 cars produced each month.
By the end of the month, the factory has only produced 950 cars.[/li]
The factory selects the three most productive workers to assemble the remaining 50 cars in overtime, which takes 20 hours. It would take the 20 least productive workers that same amount of time to produce the same 50 cars.
Thus, the factory is being more utilitarian and efficient because only 3 workers are adversely affected instead of 20, and a smaller number of workers are forced to work overtime.
This measure, though practical for the factory and utilitarian by definition, is injust because it rewards laziness or incapability while punishing productivity.

Let's keep a few things ceteris paribus here:
1) The workers do not enjoy producing cars, nor do they enjoy working overtime.
2) Utilitarianism means roughly 'for the greater good' and not 'for the greater good without marginalizing the majority'.
3) The factory management does not assign specific quotas to each worker, just as long as the full quota is reached at the end of the month (irresponsible, yes).
4) The workers act in their own self-interest. In this case, their self-interest has led them to work here because there is the lowest possible opportunity cost, and their overtime work does not affect this.

So what does everyone think about this conflict between two ideals?

Well, the first thing that strikes me isn't so much a question of justice as a question of what exactly she's critiquing. A communist society wouldn't have externally-proscribed quotas on production, and communists within the system would want to make cars as a part of their species-being. It seems to me that she's setting up a strawman based on Stalinism, which by all definitions is already known to be unjust: even communists would call Stalinist systems unjust.

Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the long term. In the example given laziness is rewarded while productivity is punished. Utility is dimished thus. The workers hate their job. If productivity was rewarded more workers would like their job because they'd get payed more money for doing a good job.

Many libertarian and anarcho-capitalists say that under their system of government(or lack thereof) the economy would grow and standards of living would go up. If true then libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is perfectly consistent with utilitarianism. Any system of economics or government is utilitarianism if it maximizes utility in the long term.

Trans-human']Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the long term. In the example given laziness is rewarded while productivity is punished. Utility is dimished thus. The workers hate their job. If productivity was rewarded more workers would like their job because they'd get payed more money for doing a good job.

Many libertarian and anarcho-capitalists say that under their system of government(or lack thereof) the economy would grow and standards of living would go up. If true then libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is perfectly consistent with utilitarianism. Any system of economics or government is utilitarianism if it maximizes utility in the long term.

Greatest happiness. Utilitarianism is the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and a fairly crude (probably Benthamite) scale at that, one that J.S. Mill would heavily modify. Greatest good for the greatest number is James' ethical pragmatism. And I don't necessarily see why utilitarians would agree with this system either: the greatest happiness might well be served by not meeting the quota. If so, then what mileage do we get out of Rand's objectivism that we don't out of utilitarianism?

Why accept utilitarianism at all?

"Greatest happiness" contains no respect for justice, no respect for life, and no respect for freedom.

Why accept utilitarianism at all?

"Greatest happiness" contains no respect for justice, no respect for life, and no respect for freedom.

Of course, but I still have yet to see anyone explain how freedom, justice, and life pertain to the automobile example that Rand brings up. I require a more clear understanding of what she's trying to point out before I could really say "Here is where utilitarianism fails".

Of course, but I still have yet to see anyone explain how freedom, justice, and life pertain to the automobile example that Rand brings up. I require a more clear understanding of what she's trying to point out before I could really say "Here is where utilitarianism fails".

The three most productive workers are, essentially, being unjustly exploited by the other ninety-seven factory workers. They have accomplished the most for the factory, and instead of being compensated the most, they are punished the most; they are forced to work overtime for reasons of utilitarianism and efficiency.

Thus, those who don't deserve rewards are rewarded, and those who do are punished instead.

Unjust happiness is garnered from the unjust suffering and explotiation of the three most productive workers.

Freedom applies more to the critique of utilitarianism found in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and life from the observation that, say, infanticide could be very easily justified from a utilitarian perspective.

Greatest happiness. Utilitarianism is the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and a fairly crude (probably Benthamite) scale at that, one that J.S. Mill would heavily modify. Greatest good for the greatest number is James' ethical pragmatism. And I don't necessarily see why utilitarians would agree with this system either: the greatest happiness might well be served by not meeting the quota. If so, then what mileage do we get out of Rand's objectivism that we don't out of utilitarianism?
There are different branches of utilarianism. Bentham's happiness generally equaled pleasure. Mill's happiness was more like contentment. Negative utilitarianism seeks to minimize pain for the greatest number. All can be seen as maximizing the good(though what is considered good differs).

The three most productive workers are, essentially, being unjustly exploited by the other ninety-seven factory workers. They have accomplished the most for the factory, and instead of being compensated the most, they are punished the most; they are forced to work overtime for reasons of utilitarianism and efficiency.

Thus, those who don't deserve rewards are rewarded, and those who do are punished instead.

Unjust happiness is garnered from the unjust suffering and explotiation of the three most productive workers.

. . .Ah, thank you. Nevertheless, I'm still not convinced that it would be utilitarian to do what you are proposing. For one thing, a utilitarian system would not exploit the workers like that in the first place, which is significant (the thought experiment seems to be: let's put the workers in a highly and inherently unjust system, and see how utilitarianism makes hay out of the situation. This ignores, however, the fact that the system might simply be rigged to be unfair, with utilitarianism simply coming up with the least unfair solution). For another, it would violate Mill act and any kind of rule utilitarianism, with only the cruder varieties such as Bentham or Sidgwick utilitarianism surviving.

The three most productive workers are, essentially, being unjustly exploited by the other ninety-seven factory workers. They have accomplished the most for the factory, and instead of being compensated the most, they are punished the most; they are forced to work overtime for reasons of utilitarianism and efficiency.

Thus, those who don't deserve rewards are rewarded, and those who do are punished instead.

Unjust happiness is garnered from the unjust suffering and explotiation of the three most productive workers.

Freedom applies more to the critique of utilitarianism found in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and life from the observation that, say, infanticide could be very easily justified from a utilitarian perspective.

Neither effiiciency nor ultililtarianisn are being served. Under this system inefficiency is rewarded so probably all the workers are very inefficient. If the system was more capitalistic the worker would be more productive, efficient, and probably happier because of increased wages and more pride in their work.

The Brave New World is a great critique of utilitarianism. Almost everybody is extremely happy, but to most readers seem like inhuman drones. Even dissidents are treated relatively benignly by being sent to islands where they can test their concepts of a better society. It is very disturbing.

bump

Bump.

"Greatest happiness" contains no respect for justice, no respect for life, and no respect for freedom.

And why would that be "wrong" ?

Aside: most of the popular moral systems have no respect for "life" either. Human life - yes; life an sich no. Otherwise PETA would be huge.