Nozick and utilitarianism

Nozick wrote for an optimistic affluent world, where human productivity outweighed any scarcity of resources and each generation would always be better off than the one before. His philosophical methodology was built on intuitions tied to that world. Perhaps we need a theory that does not rest on affluent intuitions, is not reliant on affluent optimism and has the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. In affluent philosophy, the obvious candidate was utilitarianism, one of Nozick's targets in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Utilitarianism was a broad social and intellectual tradii on, not a single principle. That tradition – associated with the pre-affluent philosophers Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Henry Sidgwick – placed human well-being centre stage. Utilitarians judged everything – actions, moral codes, political and legal institutions, and even beliefs – by its impact on human flourishing. Utilitarianism was also completely impartial. As Bentham put it, “each is to count for one, and none for more than one”. Utilitarians counted all human happiness equally, wherever and whenever it occurred. We begin with some contrasts between utilitarianism and Nozick.

1. • Utilitarians rejected absolute or natural rights. Bentham regarded natural rights as dangerous fictions. Such rights claim to be written into the moral fabric of the universe, and to take precedence over the laws or customs of any particular country.

2. […]