Ethics

I adhere to a position of moral relativism and utilitarianism. But recently I was confronted with the criticism that, then, there is no basis for the idea of "human rights" or for the ordering of law based on them. Is this true? Is there a utilitarian justification for human rights?

Comments

First, we need to clarify your terms. Moral relativism typically claims that: there is no objectively morally correct thing to do independent of the individual actor's values or the specific culture's values. In contrast, utilitarianism claims that: there is an objective morally correct thing to do, whatever action ultimately brings about the greatest happiness for all involved. Therefore, you cannot be both a relativist and a utilitarian. I suspect when you claim that you are a moral relativist, what you really mean is something like: there is no type of action that is inherently wrong in and of itself (which is a claim compatible with utilitarianism).

The claim that there are universal, objective human rights would be incompatible with utilitarianism.

However, you could claim something a little less sweeping: that given the current state of humanity, set of rights 'x' would likely bring about the greatest good for all involved on the most reliable basis that we can predict. Of course, the problem with such a claim is that it is only true until you find a situation where such rights do not actually bring about the greatest happiness for all. Then the morally correct thing to do for the utilitarian is to ignore those 'rights.'

Read another response by Eric Silverman

Read another response about Ethics