> I agree that by some moral views, it is not right that a voluntary provider of gifts should be given any privileges, but as Cowen and Parfit admits, this is not the case in a pure utilitarian view.
Maybe I’m getting confused by the double negatives, but isn’t this backwards? A pure utilitarian would argue that no one has any special privileges, right?
Apart from that minor point though, I would be interested in refutations to the objection.
Thanks for pointing out these unclear sentences. I’ve made some changes in this paragraph to make my point more clearly.
The first part of the sentence remains; in some views, it is not right that a giver of gifts get any privileges on other benefits. But in a pure utilitarian view, this might be the case in some sense. If one party provides a gift to another, otherwise equal party, this will create an inequality that decrease the total utility. A pure utilitarian view will demand that a redistribution of benefits should follow to restore the equal situation.
Of course, the utilitarian will not use the term “rights” or “privileges” to argue the case for a redistribution after the gift. Also, it is worth pointing out that in a utilitarian view the initial gift is immoral as it decreases total utility, but this is a bit beside the point as this gifting is an assumed fact with this argument.
Thanks for writing this up! Minor point:
> I agree that by some moral views, it is not right that a voluntary provider of gifts should be given any privileges, but as Cowen and Parfit admits, this is not the case in a pure utilitarian view.
Maybe I’m getting confused by the double negatives, but isn’t this backwards? A pure utilitarian would argue that no one has any special privileges, right?
Apart from that minor point though, I would be interested in refutations to the objection.
Thanks for pointing out these unclear sentences. I’ve made some changes in this paragraph to make my point more clearly.
The first part of the sentence remains; in some views, it is not right that a giver of gifts get any privileges on other benefits. But in a pure utilitarian view, this might be the case in some sense. If one party provides a gift to another, otherwise equal party, this will create an inequality that decrease the total utility. A pure utilitarian view will demand that a redistribution of benefits should follow to restore the equal situation.
Of course, the utilitarian will not use the term “rights” or “privileges” to argue the case for a redistribution after the gift. Also, it is worth pointing out that in a utilitarian view the initial gift is immoral as it decreases total utility, but this is a bit beside the point as this gifting is an assumed fact with this argument.