Quality of life or sanctity of life approach to social justice

[ribozyme]

I read this post from another thread (unfortunately it did not receive any response):

Martin Luther King was all in favor of “progressive” social justice ideas. He was very critical of Christian religion for its complicity in oppression and its negligence of social justice.
He bought into all the accusations of modern philosophers and socialists against Christian religion,and he bought into the idea that Jesus was a social justice worker. Like today’s progressives,he was more concerned about the material well-being of people,or “quality of life”,than in the sanctity of human life.

Of course, as a utilitarian, I do prefer King’s emphasis on “progressive social justice ideas” and I do not place significant priority on “the sanctity of life.” Could anyone elaborate the flaws of this progressive approach focusing on material well-being?

 

[ribozyme]

Does anyone have any arguments against an approach to social justice that is informed by utilitarian concerns? More precisely, I consider myself a negative utilitarian as I do believe that there is a strong moral imperative to reduce human suffering (as opposed to maximizing happiness).

 

[Ender]

Of course, as a utilitarian, I do prefer King’s emphasis on “progressive social justice ideas” and I do not place significant priority on “the sanctity of life.” Could anyone elaborate the flaws of this progressive approach focusing on material well-being?

I suspect the Law of Unintended Consequences would come in to play in a major way in the utilitarian society you seek. You realize of course that if you place little significance on the sanctity of others lives they will place little significance on the sanctity of yours. Do you really want to live in a society where you can be voted off the island simply because it is in the best interest of others not to have you around? I wonder how long a Bill Gates would survive in a society where, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, the quality of life for tens of thousands would be significantly increased by confiscating and distributing his property. If quality of life for the many trumps sanctity of life for the few, why would we not behave that way?

Ender

 

[ribozyme]

I suspect the Law of Unintended Consequences would come in to play in a major way in the utilitarian society you seek. You realize of course that if you place little significance on the sanctity of others lives they will place little significance on the sanctity of yours. Do you really want to live in a society where you can be voted off the island simply because it is in the best interest of others not to have you around? I wonder how long a Bill Gates would survive in a society where, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, the quality of life for tens of thousands would be significantly increased by confiscating and distributing his property. If quality of life for the many trumps sanctity of life for the few, why would we not behave that way?

Ender

I do believe quality of life trumps the “sanctity” of life especially during the early stages of life.

I am simply saying that “social justice” should focus on poverty reduction and reducing suffering instead of limiting access to contraceptions and abortion and lambasting homosexuals. Poverty should be a primary focus because of its enormous potential to cause immense suffering.

 

[Ender]

I do believe quality of life trumps the “sanctity” of life especially during the early stages of life.

It would be a more interesting discussion if you explained the basis for your opinion. This comes across as a simple statement of preference rather than a conclusion based on first principles. State the principles from which you draw your position.

I am simply saying that “social justice” should focus on poverty reduction and reducing suffering …

What do you mean “social justice should focus”? It is not an individual - how can it focus on anything at all? I don’t think you mean that poverty reduction should be everyone’s primary focus; surely there is room for individuals to choose their own social ills to combat. If you mean that the government should focus primarily on poverty reduction well … doesn’t it pretty much do that now?

… instead of limiting access to contraceptions and abortion and lambasting homosexuals.

“Instead of” isn’t an appropriate charge and I don’t think it’s what you mean anyway. First, social ills can be fought across the board; it is not necessary to ignore B in order to combat A. What I think you really mean is that these aren’t social ills at all and shouldn’t be opposed. Finally, your descriptions are false. There is no attempt by anyone to limit access to contraceptives by adults nor is there any “lambasting” of homosexuals. Besides, even if there were, since you claim the freedom to create your own moral positions you have no basis to complain when others do the same.

Ender