The principles of utilitarianism and democracy are destructive.

Utilitarianism means that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Intellectually the principle lets the door stand wide open for the use of physical violence and theft against people which happens to belong to the lesser number. If we grasp a state of things where the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people exists in using physical violence and theft everywhere and in all human situations and places (i.e. in the classroom, shop, street, airport, forest etc) against all those people that happened to belong to the lesser numbers, the human race would quickly perish.

The principle of democracy means that a majority of a number of people has the right to use physical violence and theft against the minority, just because of the fact that they belong to a majority. Intellectually this principle also lets the door stand wide open for the use of physical violence and theft against people who happens to belong to a minority. If we grasp a state of things where majorities of people exists everywhere and in all human situations and places (i.e. in the classroom, shop, street, airport, forest etc) and all those majorities use physical violence and theft against all those people that happened to belong to the minority, the human race would quickly perish.

As we have seen, the principle of utilitarianism and the principle of democracy if followed by all groups of people in all places would lead to human destruction and this, therefore, proves that the principles are destructive. Any crime could be done in the name of utilitarianism and in the name of democracy such as murder, theft, rape, slavery etc. The lesser number of people and the minority would always be at the mercy of the greatest number or the majority.

Private groups of people in society are therefore, naturally, not allowed to commit crimes in the name of utilitarianism and in the name of democracy.

The state has a “legal right” to commit crimes and the state nearly, always does it in the name of utilitarianism and democracy.

In the name of utilitarianism Hitler could have justified all the murdering of the Jews that he made. He probably, also, thought that he by doing those crimes achieved the greatest happiness for the greatest number of Germans.

The Nazi party was also democratically elected and received 37, 4% of the German votes in 1932 election.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nazi-party-2?method=26&initiator=answertip:more


Let us not forget:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-309490343652240839&q=hitler+jews

Video “The Rape of Nanking”:

http://video.Google.com/videoplay?docid=4920138942953644691


Or, alternatively, as Rothbard wrote in his book For a New Liberty:

“Let us consider a stark example: Suppose a society which fervently considers all redheads to be agents of the Devil and therefore to be executed whenever found. Let us further assume that only a small number of redheads exist in any generation-so few as to be statistically insignificant. The utilitarian-libertarian might well reason: "While the murder of isolated redheads is deplorable, the executions are small in number; the vast majority of the public, as non-redheads, achieves enormous psychic satisfaction from the public execution of redheads. The social cost is negligible, the social, psychic benefit to the rest of society is great; therefore, it is right and proper for society to execute the redheads." The natural-rights libertarian, overwhelmingly concerned as he is for the justice of the act, will react in horror and staunchly and unequivocally oppose the executions as totally unjustified murder and aggression upon nonaggressive persons. The consequence of stopping the murders—depriving the bulk of society of great psychic pleasure—would not influence such a libertarian, the "absolutist" libertarian, in the slightest. Dedicated to justice and to logical consistency, the natural-rights libertarian cheerfully admits to being "doctrinaire," to being, in short, an unabashed follower of his own doctrines.”

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty2.asp

Naturally, the principle of democracy could also in Rothbard’s example justify the killing of those Indians as they belonged to a relatively small minority.

If anything should be exterminated, it is the principles of utilitarianism and democracy.

The right path to follow is instead:

The Ethics of Liberty:

Hesselberg continues:

“But a social order is not possible unless man is able to conceive what it is, and what its advantages are, and also conceive those norms of conduct which are necessary to its establishment and preservation, namely, respect for another's person and for his rightful possessions, which is the substance of justice. . . . But justice is the product of reason, not the passions. And justice is the necessary support of the social order; and the social order is necessary to man's well-being and happiness. If this is so, the norms of justice must control and regulate the passions, and not vice versa.”

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/two.asp

Or in other words and in a more rigid form: "that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else".

I have written an essay about normative principles. Please go to:

http://normativeprinciples.blogspot.com/2006/12/normative-principles-pure-free-market_10.html



Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden