\documentstyle[palatino,fullpage,12pt,doublespace]{article}

\title{Absolutism and Utilitarianism}
\author{Marc Horowitz}
\date{13 December 1995}
\begin{document}
\begin{singlespace}
\maketitle
\end{singlespace} 

Utilitarianism, in all its forms, is based on the idea of maximizing
utility of outcome.  Therefore, the only basis for evaluating the
moral worthiness of an action is its ends.  This restriction seems to
lead to a moral dilemma: should an agent ignore the means used to
reach an end?  Absolutism attempts to address this claim by
establishing a distinction between means and ends, and creating
certain restrictions on what means may be appropriate.  In short, it
focuses on what is done, and to whom, rather than on what happens.

In his essay ``War and Massacre'', Nagel focuses on moral questions
which arise for individuals, and governments during wartime.  It is
widely accepted among governments that certain behavior is
reprehensible or unacceptable in war.  Attacks on medicinal personnel
and facilities are forbidden.  Torture or other extreme mistreatment
of prisoners or civilians is not considered valid.  Utilitarianism
does not seem to provide a moral basis for this sort of rule.  For
example, if one can save an entire battalion of soldiers by torturing
critical tactical information out of a prisoner, this would seem to
result in higher utility than having the entire battalion wiped out.

In order to address this concern, Nagel presents the idea of certain
actions being absolutely unacceptable, no matter what the
consequences.  It is important to realize that absolutism prohibits
only certain actions, and not merely outcomes.  Murder is prohibited,
but an action which has as a side-effect the death of an innocent
person may be morally acceptable, if not desirable.  If this were not
so, no possible moral action would be possible in some circumstances,
such as that of a person with a small liferaft who must choose who to
save from a large sinking ship.  His actions will have the side-effect
of causing some people to die, but this is different from actively
murdering these people.

Absolutism by itself is a necessary component of moral thought, but it
is not sufficient.  Taken alone, absolutism only says what a person
should not do, and says nothing of what a person is required to do.
In the example of the liferaft captain, pure absolutism would let him
stand by while everyone drowned.  This flaw is avoided because
absolutism does not let an agent ignore the outcomes of his actions.
An agent should still act to maximize the utility of the outcome of
his actions.  While a utilitarian agent should choose the
utility-maximizing action from among all possible actions available to
him, the absolutist agent should make his choice from a subset of
actions which does not include absolutely prohibited means.
Absolutism overrides, but does not eliminate, utilitarianism.

The distinction between actions and outcomes is attractive, but it is
also ambiguous.  A single action can be described in many ways.  Nagel
gives the example of destroying a village in order to kill the
guerrillas hiding there.  If the action is ``killing everyone in the
village'', then innocent people are being murdered, and this is not
permitted.  If the action is ``destroying the guerrilla stronghold'',
the the deaths of innocents are merely a side-effect of their being in
the wrong place at the wrong time.  Nagel admits that the distinction
is difficult to analyze, and leaves it that way.

However, not all such cases are ambiguous.  In evaluating if an action
is permissible, one must consider the innocence of the target of the
action with respect to that action, where ``innocence'' is defined in
terms of that individual's place in the situation.  In other words,
treatment of an individual must be directly appropriate to that
individual based on his own specific condition.  If one has a
disagreement with a man, taking action against his wife or children is
wrong.  They are not a party to the disagreement, and as such are
innocent in this situation.  The fact that taking action against them
may be effective, perhaps even increasing utility in the outcome, does
not make it right.

Even with respect to valid targets, there are still limits as to what
sorts of actions may be permissible.  Absolutism does not allow
insults or injuries which go outside of the bounds of what is
appropriate in the situation.  While it may be necessary to injure or
kill a soldier in war to prevent damage to oneself, methods of attack
whose intent is not only to disable, but to maim or cripple
unnecessarily, are morally prohibited.

Some objectors to absolutism claim that it panders to the desire of
the individual to remain morally pure in the face of a difficult
decision, even if the outcome suffers.  Is this not self-indulgent?
Nagel argues convincingly that it is not.  The idea that an agent
might sacrifice his moral integrity towards the greater good (where
sacrifice is the opposite of self-indulgence) is incoherent.  If the
sacrifice brings about the greater good, then it is not a sacrifice at
all, but the morally right thing to do.  In some ways, all moral
systems encourage individuals to be morally indulgent.  In doing that
which is right, however right is defined, the agent might experience
moral indulgence.  This does not make moral indulgence the aim of a
moral system, merely a side-effect.

Absolutist rules which govern prohibited actions in interpersonal
relationships (such as they are) can be extended to actions in
societal relationships, such as those between governments.  Nagel
discusses the moral foundations for the laws of war and conflict.
When governments engage in war, it is individual people who endure the
pain.  To avoid breaking an absolutist rule, a suitable definition of
individual innocence in the context of war is needed.  In war,
aggression is only appropriate against combatants and those who
directly support the combatants' mission as warriors, not as people.
So, a soldier is a valid target, as are his commanding officers,
ammunition suppliers, etc.  But medical personnel, cooks, family
members, etc., are not directly responsible for the war mission; they
would exist in any case.  Thus, they are innocent of the war effort,
and not valid targets.

Certainly, civilian populations which are at best tangentially related
to the war effort are innocent, and should not be considered valid
targets.  Unfortunately for the absolutist, attacking major population
centers in order to force an opponent to back down has been used as a
tactic by many warring nations.  From the repeated bombing of London
by the Germans, to the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by
the United States, serious moral decisions have been made to the
horror of the absolutist.  No matter what the outcome, this behavior
is nothing short of murder.

One difficulty with absolutism seems to be where one draws the line
between absolutism and utilitarianism.  If one can prevent many
children's agonizing deaths by stealing an inexpensive object from an
innocent, wealthy shopowner, it seems difficult to support the claim
that absolutism describes the right thing to do.  Of course, examples
such as this are construed, but there is still the possibility of a
situation where no morally acceptable alternative exists.  Most
frequently, this is the fault of the agent, such as making
contradictory promises, and therefore having to break one of them.
Nagel fears that situations exist where a person, through no fault of
his own, has no moral solution.  I tend to disagree.  There are
situations where one may need to choose between two undesirable
actions leading to two undesirable outcomes, but there is always a
morally preferable choice.  I don't think absolutism will always lead
one to make that choice.

Another difficulty with Nagel's arguments in favor of absolutism is
that, while he makes several arguments about why absolutism is not
clearly false, he never gives a satisfactory argument why absolutism
is clearly true.  The best argument he can make is to assert how
individuals should treat individuals, and how this extends to groups
should treat individuals and other groups.  Unfortunately, this line
of reasoning does nothing to dispose of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism claims that an agent should not consider his own
desires to be any more or less relevant than anybody else's.  It seems
an obvious step for a utilitarian to claim that the innocence of an
individual affected by an action is no more or less important than any
other person's innocence.  Thus, a utilitarian can consistently argue
that innocence is irrelevant when judging the outcome of an action,
and there are no ground rules which might restrict the means suitable
to reach the desired end.

\end{document}
