There are strong
utilitarian arguments too for abolishing IHT.
The ecomodernists recognize that their case for preserving nature by decoupling human activity from environmental impacts «draws more on spiritual or aesthetic than on material or
utilitarian arguments,» since we «could survive and prosper materially on a planet with much less biodiversity and wild nature.»
Three very different, unrealistic, artificial scenarios or course, but I just toss them out to show that there seems to be a point at which one's emotional response overrides most logical
utilitarian arguments.
But at least he knows — if I read him correctly — that religious communities must stop using
utilitarian arguments to buttress their public appeals.
The moral argument transcends
the utilitarian argument.
It's
the Utilitarian argument just as Dinesh D'Souza does all the time.
That responsibility, they contend, goes beyond
any utilitarian argument.
Not exact matches
To put it — for the sake of
argument — a bit too simply: there have been behind the civil religion from the beginning two great structures of interpretation, the one I shall call biblical, the other
utilitarian.
Mark's
argument is
utilitarian, Matthew's equalitarian, and Luke's humanitarian.
He concedes that «from a
utilitarian view, the
argument [he opposes] is unassailable.»
So long as the prevailing view is that they are not necessarily wrong, public policy in a pluralistic system must be indifferent to any beliefs that can not be independently supported by rational (
utilitarian)
argument.
If «
utilitarian»
arguments can not prevail, individuals should be content to have faith guide only their own moral decisions.
Personally, for instance, I would contend that deliberately induced abortion is wrong and that that conclusion can be reached on the basis of «
utilitarian» (i.e., natural law) analysis; my
arguments, however, would not be so clear that no sincere person could reject them without being suspected of perversity.
The limitation of this
argument, however, is that it can never transcend its constructivist and
utilitarian (not to say nihilist) premises.
A fourth
argument has to do not so much with meaning or validity or doctrine as with the
utilitarian and prudential question of what to do.
This could be an
argument for a
utilitarian state, of which there is no example on Earth, but not for a democracy or a republic or a non-democratic state that is not a
utilitarian one.
To help, I started labeling significant portions of my story with unsexy and
utilitarian titles like, «
Argument about green vs. black tea» and «Weird surveillance grocery store encounter.»
There is an
argument for
utilitarian calculations such as these, but they are
arguments that sit uncomfortably with libertarianism, a point well made by analysts elsewhere at the Cato Institute.
This though remains an
argument on Morton's terms: a largely
utilitarian assessment of net costs and benefits.