Negative Utilitarian Priorities

B.Contestabile First version 2005 Last version 2019

Table of Contents

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. UNO Sustainable Development Goals

2.1 Definition

2.2 Criticism

3. Copenhagen Consensus

3.1 Definition

3.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis

3.3 Criticism

4. Negative Utilitarian Approach

4.1 Definition

4.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis

4.3 Comparison with the Copenhagen Consensus

4.4 Beyond the Sustainable Development Goals

5. Conclusion

Appendix: Quality Control of NGOs

References

Abstract

Starting point

The UNO Sustainable Development Goals are taken as a basis for defining global ethical priorities, because they represent the result of intense discussions among a considerable number of experts. The UNO experts are supposed to represent the majority of the world population.

The Copenhagen Consensus uses welfare economics as a basis and criticizes the UNO priorities as being ineffective.

For a definition of negative utilitarianism see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice.

Type of problem

What difference does it make, if global ethical priorities are based

- on the goal to maximize total welfare or

- on the goal to improve the welfare of the worst-off?

Method

The main difference between the Copenhagen Consensus and the negative utilitarian approach is the following:

- The Copenhagen Consensus seeks to increase global welfare, where welfare is measured in terms of the GDP.

- The negative utilitarian approach concentrates on the minority of the worst-off. The term welfare is used in a general sense (life satisfaction) and not reduced to economic welfare.

As opposed to the Copenhagen Consensus we maintain that the ranking of investments cannot be based on a calculus because the system is too complex and the priorities depend on each other. Since there is no way to quantify variables, the priorities are presented in the form of theses.

Result

The most efficient strategy to reduce suffering is probably defined in the United Nations Responsibility to Protect, a global commitment to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

With regard to NGOs the following priorities have to be considered:

- Contribute to peacebuilding

- Eradicate torture

- Implement the right to palliative care and legalize voluntary euthanasia

- Improve ethical knowledge

None of these activities appears within the top 19 priorities of the Copenhagen Consensus.

The Copenhagen Consensus and negative utilitarianism agree on the following interdependent priorities:

- Ensure sustainability

- Guarantee a decent standard of nutrition and health care

- Make family planning available to everyone

The ethical ideal of childlessness is an issue in negative utilitarianism, but not in the Copenhagen Consensus;

see Antinatalism and the Minimization of Suffering.

1. Introduction

Starting point

▪ The UNO Sustainable Development Goals are taken as a basis for defining global ethical priorities, because they represent the result of intense discussions among a considerable number of experts. The UNO experts are supposed to represent the majority of the world population.

▪ The Copenhagen Consensus uses welfare economics as a basis and criticizes the UNO priorities as being ineffective.

▪ For a definition of negative utilitarianism see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice.

Type of problem

What difference does it make, if global ethical priorities are based

▪ on the goal to maximize total welfare or

▪ on the goal to improve the welfare of the worst-off?

2. UNO Sustainable Development Goals

2.1 Definition

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a proposed set of targets relating to future international development. They are to replace the Millennium Development Goals once they expire at the end of 2015. The SDGs were first formally discussed at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012 (Rio+20).

As of March 2015, there were 17 proposed goals:

1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere

2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

10. Reduce inequality within and among countries

11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

As at March 2015, there were 169 proposed targets for these goals and 304 proposed indicators to show compliance.

(Sustainable Development Goals, Wikipedia)

2.2 Criticism

The Copenhagen Consensus criticizes the UNO strategy on the following grounds:

1. The forces of the market should be used to improve economic, technological and social development.

2. The UNO does not concentrate on a manageable number of targets and indicators

3. The UNO targets do not consider the relation between cost and benefit.

3. Copenhagen Consensus

3.1 Definition

Copenhagen Consensus is a project that seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics, utilizing cost-benefit analysis (Copenhagen Consensus, Wikipedia)

Cost and benefit are calculated

▪ in terms of US dollars or

▪ as a percentage of the GDP.

3.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis

The world will spend $2.5 trillion in development aid from 2015-2030, and the UNO targets will influence a large part of that spending. Making just one target better can do hundreds of billions of dollars worth of good (Copenhagen Consensus, Homepage)

According to Björn Lomborg – the organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus – the UNO targets need to be trimmed:

“Having 169 targets is like having no targets at all.”

Reduction to 75 targets

Mr Lomborg commissioned some 60 teams of economists, plus representatives from the UN, NGOs and business, to review the proposed targets to work out which would generate the most benefit per dollar spent (…).

Following the 75 targets with the most promising cost-benefit ratio:

(Copenhagen Consensus, The Economist Jan 24th 2015)

Reduction to 19 targets

An Expert Panel including two Nobel Laureates reviewed above list and identified the 19 targets that represent the best value-for-money in development over the period 2016 to 2030, offering more than $15 back on every dollar invested:

People

Lower chronic child malnutrition by 40%

Halve malaria infection

Reduce tuberculosis deaths by 90%

Avoid 1.1 million HIV infections through circumcision

Cut early death from chronic diseases by 1/3

Reduce newborn mortality by 70%

Increase immunization to reduce child deaths by 25%

Make family planning available to everyone

Eliminate violence against women and girls

Planet

Phase out fossil fuel subsidies

Halve coral reef loss

Tax pollution damage from energy

Cut indoor air pollution by 20%

Prosperity

Reduce trade restrictions (full Doha)

Improve gender equality in ownership, business and politics

Boost agricultural yield increase by 40%

Increase girls’ education by 2 years

Achieve universal primary education in sub-Saharan Africa

Triple preschool in sub-Saharan Africa

For a graphic overview click here.

(Nobel Laureates Guide to Smarter Global Targets to 2030)

3.3 Criticism

Defenders of the Sustainable Development Goals argue that their greatest virtue lies in getting countries involved in any development scheme underpinned by proper reporting and peer review. Economic purity must sometimes be sacrificed to secure broad agreement on a set of global goals. Mr Lomborg’s work is “very naive”, says Jeffrey Sachs, another economist with strong views about what works in international development. (The Economics of Optimism, The Economist, Jan 24th 2015)

In some cases the cost of political resistance is unclear or discarded:

Examples:

▪ The proposal to liberalize trade faces political resistance. Overcoming such resistance increases the cost of implementation and makes it impossible to calculate a priority. Nevertheless, the issue is classified among the top 19 priorities (full Doha).

▪ Higher standards of governance (better institutions, less corruption and bribery) are of paramount importance in our context. Again it is impossible to estimate the cost of implementation and calculate a priority. But interestingly – in this case – the Copenhagen Consensus decided to exclude the issue from the top 19 priorities.

▪ The Sustainable Development Goals are difficult to implement in times of war and political instability. International peace and security should get an accordingly higher priority (chapter 2.1, goal 16). Again, the variables of this target cannot be quantified.

4. Negative Utilitarian Approach

4.1 Definition

In analogy to the Copenhagen Consensus (chapter 3.2) the negative utilitarian approach attempts to answer the following question:

What would be the best ways to reduce the worst kinds of suffering, supposing that $2.5 trillion are at disposal?

The negative utilitarian approach presented in this paper does not raise claims (in contrast to the Copenhagen Consensus). It intends to induce a Socratic discussion about a different view on global ethical priorities. For a definition of negative utilitarianism see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice.

The negative utilitarian approach is based on the assumption that philanthropic activities are indeed effective in the reduction of suffering.

The Myths About Aid illustrate that this is not self-evident.

4.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis

4.2.1 Method

In 2005 a global consensus has been reached on the prevention of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

This consensus, defined in the United Nations Responsibility to Protect, probably represents the most efficient strategy to reduce suffering. The authority to use force rests solely with the United Nations Security Council and is considered a measure of last resort.

In the following we will – in accordance with the Copenhagen Consensus – analyze non-violent strategies to improve the state of affairs. For information on justified violence see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice.

▪ As opposed to the Copenhagen Consensus we maintain that the ranking of investments cannot be based on a calculus. The system is too complex and the activities depend on each other. Since there is no way to quantify variables, the priorities are presented in the form of theses.

▪ Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are listed, which support the proposed priorities. The quality of NGOs can be controlled by means of charity navigators [Appendix].

4.2.2 International peace and security

Thesis: International peace and security is a prerequisite for social stability and any attempt, to improve the situation of the most suffering minority.

Torture in particular is difficult to eradicate as long civil and religious wars persist.

Examples of peace-building organizations: International Peace Institute, Interpeace, Swisspeace

A means to reduce the incidence of religious wars is the promotion of critical rational thinking.

Examples:

▪ International Humanist and Ethical Union

▪ Giordano Bruno Foundation

Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them. Peter Ustinov

4.2.3 Economic, technological and social development

There is a biological pressure to expand populations at the cost of the quality of life. The shortage of resources (e.g. caused by global warming) increases the risk of mass migration, social conflicts, wars, etc.

Thesis 1: Ensuring sustainability is the most efficient strategy to prevent suffering.

Thesis 2: The avoidance of overpopulation is the most efficient strategy to ensure sustainability.

According to projections, the world population will continue to grow until at least 2050; reaching 9 billion in 2040 (see Infographic The Seventh Billion). These projections are disputed:

1. The theory of demographic transition holds that, after the standard of living and life expectancy increase, family sizes and birth rates decline. However, as new data has become available, it has been observed that after a certain level of development the fertility increases again (Wikipedia, Overpopulation).

2. Latest projections are 11.2 instead of 9.1 billion for 2100, see Robert Engelman, Africa’s Population, Scientific American, Feb.2016.

Depending on which estimate is used, human overpopulation may or may not have already occurred (Wikipedia, Overpopulation).

The economic and technical globalization requires a global ethical discourse on overpopulation. The obvious intuition, for example, (based on population density) that additional people are welcome in Australia, but not in India, is right locally, but wrong globally, because an average Australian consumes ten times more energy (see energy consumption per capita) and emits ten times more carbon dioxide (see carbon dioxide emissions per capita) than an average Indian.

Examples of organizations which promote sustainability:

Population Council, Population Action International, Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung, Aktion Regen.

Concerning the ethical ideal of childlessness see Antinatalism and the Minimization of Suffering.

4.2.4 Humanitarian aid

Thesis: A decent standard of nutrition and health care has a high short term evidence of return on investment (in terms of reduced suffering). This evidence justifies the high priority of humanitarian aid in a cost-benefit analysis.

The access to the victims of political and armed conflicts is the biggest challenge within the domain of humanitarian aid. There are two different strategies in this context:

▪ Political neutrality. In many cases this has proven to be the best strategy in order to get access to the victims of armed conflicts.

Example: International Committee of the Red Cross

▪ Analyze the causes of humanitarian catastrophes and combine aid with moral pressure.

Example: Medecins sans frontières.

4.2.5 Human rights

Thesis 1: Extreme suffering like torture can only be prevented by implementing human rights worldwide.

▪ Prerequisites for the implementation of human rights and democracy are a free press and an efficient political opposition. Only a pluralistic political system guarantees the protection of minorities.

▪ Human rights organizations analyze the causes of human rights violations and put governments under moral pressure. This approach indirectly supports most of the other priorities mentioned in chapter 4.2.

Examples of human rights organizations:

1) General: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch

2) Specific:

a) Torture: World Organization against Torture, Association for the Prevention of Torture

b) Slavery: Free the Slaves, Anti-Slavery

c) Freedom of opinion: Reporters without Borders, Committee to Protect Journalists, PEN International

d) Women’s rights: AHA Foundation, FJS Foundation

Thesis 2: Unalleviated suffering from cancer can be comparably severe to torture and is significantly more common. Palliative care and voluntary euthanasia should be acknowledged as human rights.

Voluntary euthanasia helps to avoid some of the worst kinds of suffering. However,

▪ active euthanasia violates the law in the United States and all European countries except Holland and Belgium,

▪ passive euthanasia violates the law in the United States and all European countries except Holland, Belgium and Switzerland.

Palliative care and the fight against depression have ethical priority, but active and passive euthanasia should be legalized in well-defined and controlled situations which prevent abuse. The valuation of an individual’s life and death is tied to an individual biography and to an inner perspective which cannot fully be understood by others.

▪ An organization which promotes palliative care is e.g. Human Rights Watch (HWR Palliative Care).

▪ Right to die societies are locally organized, see World Federation.

The negative utilitarian priorities suggested in Thesis 1 and Thesis 2 are just one of many attempts to distinguish between more and less important issues within human rights. John Rawls concentrated on civil and political rights, i.e. the protection of minorities and the avoidance of totalitarian regimes [Rawls].

The unprincipled proliferation of human right claims in international documents (e.g. the right to periodic holidays with pay, stated in article 24 of the Universal Declaration) explains why Rawls began to pursue more austere approaches (Human Rights and Duties of Assistance, Aachen University).

4.2.6 Ethical knowledge

Thesis: The improvement of ethical knowledge has the highest cost-benefit ratio in the fight against suffering.

The exploration and proliferation of ethical knowledge is the task of practical philosophy. Whereas academically-oriented institutions usually explore and teach ethical knowledge, there are NGOs which apply it by social and political activities:

We know little about the interdependencies of ethical actions. Following some of the most complex questions:

1. Under what circumstances does economic, technological and social development improve the human rights situation?

2. What is the efficiency of peace promotion as compared to humanitarian aid?

3. What is the efficiency of avoiding overpopulation as compared to humanitarian aid?

International peace and security Economic, technological and social development Human rights Humanitarian aid

4. The efficiency of development aid is a controversial matter; see Short History of Welfare Economics. Fair trade may be more efficient than development aid.

- Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential offers radically different perspectives to policy-makers, social researchers and those concerned with development strategy.

- Innovations for Poverty Action funds research on the interventions that do the most good [Howgego, 46]

5. Fighting the abuse of power may be more efficient than distributing charity.

- Global Witness discloses the links between natural resource exploitation, conflict, poverty, corruption, and human rights abuses.

- Global Integrity, Transparency International, Quality of Government Institute fight corruption and criticize the quality of governance.

6. The counterproductive mechanisms and undesirable side-effects of technological and social change are largely unknown or suppressed. The technological improvement of welfare may have to be “paid for” by increased technological risks; see The Cultural Evolution of Suffering. The undesirable side effects of new technologies are often hard to estimate because they show up with a delay. The currently most discussed examples of such side effects are global warming and the risks of artificial intelligence.

- Effective Altruism Foundation, informs policy-makers about the risks of emerging technologies.

- Open Philanthropy Project is focused on unusual modes of giving – and committed to offering long-term support to high-risk projects. In practice that has come to include funding research that could prevent existential threats to humanity, such as pandemics, catastrophic climate change and – most controversially – an apocalypse caused by rogue artificial intelligence [Howgego, 45].

7. How can animal suffering be weighed against human suffering?

For information on the suffering of animals see

- List of animal rights groups.

- Animal Charity Evaluators

4.3 Comparison with the Copenhagen Consensus

The main difference between the Copenhagen Consensus and the negative utilitarian approach is the following:

▪ The Copenhagen Consensus seeks to increase global welfare, where welfare is measured in terms of the GDP.

▪ The focus of the negative utilitarian approach is on the minority of the worst-off. The term welfare is used in a general sense (life satisfaction) and not reduced to economic welfare.

Following some practical examples to illustrate the difference:

From a negative utilitarian point of view an increase in the world’s GDP is (ethically) worthless

▪ if it does not induce a corresponding increase in life satisfaction (see Short History of Welfare Economics)

▪ if it is caused by expanding the population at the cost of the quality of life (see The Repugnant Conclusion).

▪ if it has to be “paid for” by incalculable risks (see The Cultural Evolution of Suffering)

▪ if the number of the suffering people cannot be reduced (see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice).

The advantage of the GDP consists in being a measurable criterion. Humanitarian aid can comparatively easily be linked to an increase of the GDP, whereas the effect of peace and human rights activities are hard to calculate. The Copenhagen Consensus discards political in favor of economic priorities. The method dictates the result (see chapter 3.3).

Organizations with a clearly negative utilitarian focus are the following:

▪ Algosphere Alliance, global network dedicated to the alleviation of suffering through collaboration and political mobilization.

▪ OPIS, Organisation for the Prevention of Intense Suffering

4.4 Beyond the Sustainable Development Goals

Globalization

In the following we investigate what happens to ethical priorities, if we extend the planning horizon beyond the Sustainable Development Goals (2030). So far the priorities were stamped by the needs of underdeveloped countries, a result which can be justified as follows:

1) Objective data suggest that underdeveloped nations suffer more than developed ones

2) Subjective suffering correlates with objective suffering in underdeveloped nations

(see Negative Utilitarianism and Justice, Implementation)

If globalization progresses as it did since the last Millennium, then we have reason to assume that the prolongation of lifetime will gain in importance in each and every nation. Under these circumstances the ethical priority of medical research gets into the picture.

Medical research

We start with an example, where medical research already got resources within the Millennium Development Goals:

The development of a vaccination against HIV/AIDS and malaria was weighted against emergency aid. Within the time frame of 15 years the development of a vaccination was realistic so that a part of the resources was allocated to the corresponding research. Similarly, within the next 15 years, a part of the resources for family planning will have to be invested in the development of better contraceptives and a part of the resources for palliative care will have to be invested in palliative research.

As life expectancy increases on a global level, the incidence of cancer, strokes, Parkinson’s disease and dementia increases as well. If we extend the planning horizon far enough, then in all these areas medical research has to be weighted against emergency aid. Should research get the entirety of resources because the prevented suffering in the future is much bigger than the necessary sacrifices in the present?

Skepticism

There are reasons for not extending the planning horizon into the far future. The effect of emergency aid is guaranteed and measurable, whereas the result of research is uncertain. Not only because the researchers could fail, but also because many unswayable factors influence the result. There might be a war, a social revolution, a decay of the high-technology culture or a natural catastrophe destroying the whole effort of research. But ethical priorities could also change dramatically because of the developments in artificial intelligence. The more we plan into the future the more we have to account for uncertainty. For the reasons given in The Cultural Evolution of Suffering (chapter Skepticism) the fight against suffering should not be accompanied with the optimistic kind of messages we find in marketing and sales. It is a matter of intellectual honesty to admit that the future is uncertain and that the risks are immense. Practical philosophy is not supposed to deliver another utopia which justifies actual suffering by future happiness. It may be impossible to improve the status quo, it may even be impossible to break the evolutionary trend towards higher levels of suffering.

This leads us back to population ethics. Negative utilitarianism asks for a reduction of the population size

▪ if suffering cannot be reduced in a sustainable environment

▪ if the shrinking population does not (durably) worsen the situation

For details see Antinatalism and the Minimization of Suffering

An organization which aims at smaller populations is Negative Population Growth.

For organizations which facilitate remaining childless see Childless sites.

A voluntary extinction of humanity (as propagated by VHEMT) is unrealistic. There is only a choice between more or less suffering populations.

5. Conclusion

Method

The main difference between the Copenhagen Consensus and the negative utilitarian approach is the following:

- The Copenhagen Consensus seeks to increase global welfare, where welfare is measured in terms of the GDP.

- The negative utilitarian approach concentrates on the minority of the worst-off. The term welfare is used in a general sense (life satisfaction) and not reduced to economic welfare.

As opposed to the Copenhagen Consensus we maintain that the ranking of investments cannot be based on a calculus because the system is too complex and the priorities depend on each other. Since there is no way to quantify variables, the priorities are presented in the form of theses.

Result

The most efficient strategy to reduce suffering is probably defined in the United Nations Responsibility to Protect, a global commitment to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

With regard to NGOs the following priorities have to be considered:

▪ Contribute to peacebuilding

▪ Eradicate torture

▪ Implement the right to palliative care and legalize voluntary euthanasia

▪ Improve ethical knowledge

None of these activities appears within the top 19 priorities of the Copenhagen Consensus.

The Copenhagen Consensus and negative utilitarianism agree on the following interdependent priorities:

▪ Ensure sustainability

▪ Guarantee a decent standard of nutrition and health care

▪ Make family planning available to everyone

The ethical ideal of childlessness is an issue in negative utilitarianism, but not in the Copenhagen Consensus;

see Antinatalism and the Minimization of Suffering.

Appendix

Quality Control of Non-Governmental Organizations

General information

▪ Charity Assessment

▪ Open Philanthropy

Country-specific

1) Austria: Österreichisches Spendengütesiegel

2) Germany: DZI

3) Switzerland: ZEWO

4) USA

a) BBB Wise Giving Alliance

b) Charity Navigator

c) Charity Watch

d) Great Nonprofits

e) GuideStar

f) ImpactMatters [Howgego, 45].

International

GiveWell ranks the most effective charities, in terms of lives saved or lives improved per dollar, according to what it considers the best possible data, including randomized controlled trials Give Well has by its nature been biased towards charities whose outcomes are easily measurable, like health-based interventions. But it recently said it is aiming to begin investigating philanthropy where the outcomes are less easy to measure. (…) Effective altruism in general is broadening its scope. [Howgego, 44-45].

Giving What We Can conducts research to determine which charities it recommends for members and other people to support. It differs from other charity evaluators in terms of the importance given to metrics of charity performance. While evaluators such as Charity Navigator use the fraction of donations spent on program expenses versus administrative overhead as an important indicator, Giving What We Can solely focuses on the cost-effectiveness of the charity's work. It believes that the variance in cost-effectiveness of charities arises largely due to the variance in the nature of the causes that the charities operate in, and therefore makes evaluations across broad areas of work such as health, education, and emergency aid before comparing specific organizations. In practice, it recommends a selected few charities in the area of global health. Its work is therefore similar to that of GiveWell.

(Giving What We Can, Wikipedia)

The following organizations are less biased towards charities whose outcomes are easily measurable:

▪ Giving Evidence [Howgego, 44]

▪ The Life You Can Save [Howgego, 44]

▪ NGO Advisor

▪ Philanthropedia, a division of GuideStar

References

1. Howgego Joshua (2019), How to do Good, New Scientist, 7 December, 42-46

2. Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA