ȃȈȇ Partʺʺ: Politics and Philosophyin particular, from whether or not personal rights are recognized and
respected.
Ļe term “utilitarianism” as used here applies to any critical examina-
tion of social rules and institutions, their functioning, and their implica-
tions for happiness. In this wide sense, F.A. Hayek says (ȀȈȆȅ, pp.ȀȆ–Ȁȇ),
anyone prepared to examine existing values rather than accept them
unquestioningly is a utilitarian; Aristotle, Ļomas Aquinas, and David
Hume would so count.
In rejecting act-utilitarianism for rules-utilitarianism—but the terms
are not his—Hayek explains (ȀȈȅȈ, pp.ȃȄ–ȃȅ) why it may be rational to dis-
regard known particular circumstances when making decisions. Acciden-
tal and partial bits of information might not change the probability that if
we knew and could process all information about the circumstances, the
net advantage would lie on the side of following the applicable rule. We
should not decide each case on the basis of the limited number of individ-
ual facts that we happen to know.
One reason for abiding by rules, then, is that we simply cannot assess
all the consequences and costs and benefits—direct and remote, immedi-
ate and delayed—of alternative actions in each particular case. One might
object that this position is anti-intellectual, making a virtue of ignorance.
How can we know that advances in theory and technology may not make
possible those allegedly impossible assessments? Part of the answer, I con-
jecture, is that the critic has not really seen the point. Rules-utilitarianism
does not glorify ignorance. Rather, it perceives the rationality of acting,
in certain cases and aspects of life, on generally applicable abstract prin-
ciples instead of on the fragmentary and probably accidentally biased bits
of concrete information that one may happen to possess. Furthermore,
complexity and ignorance by no means form the entire case for rules-
utilitarianism. Acting by rule or on principle often contributes toovercom-
ingignorance, namely people’s ignorance of each other’s probable behav-
ior. General acceptance of principles contributes to predictability in the
world and thus to people’s chances of coordinating their activities to their
mutual benefit.
As a utilitarian in the tradition of Hume rather than Bentham, Hayek
does not envision maximization of some aggregate of numerical measures.
He says (ȀȈȆȅ, pp.ȀȁȈ–ȀȂǿ) that the aim in developing or altering rules
of just conduct “should be to improve as much as possible the chances of
anyone selected at random.” He speaks ofchancesrather thanprobabilities
“because the latter term suggests numerical magnitudes which will not be