How to call this ethicsl/moral position?

[Ichneumon]

First of all, this is a question about ethics and morality, but it is about how you should call/name a certain moral theory or attitude, not about whether following the theory would be "good" or "evil".*

I've thought about a certain ethical position/strategy and I don't know what it would be called, I'll name it "position X". I'd appreciate your help in finding out what it would be called. It basically is somewhat of a variant on Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism basically consists of 3 assumptions, as far as I can see:

*1. it's the consequences of an act that determine whether it is good or bad.

2. It is utility (welfare, pleasure, preference satisfaction, other definitions exist, but I'm mostly assuming something like "welfare" or "not suffering") that is "good".

3. The thing that is good (see 2.) should be maximized. Greatest good for te greatest number.

Now, Position X accepts assumptions 1 and 2, but instead of prefering the situation in which utility is maximized, it chooses the situation in which the person with the least utility is best off.*

So, let's take a simplistic example, to explain what I mean:

Situation 1
A has 5 Utility
B has 4 Utility
C has 5 Utility
D has 1 Utility
Total utility: 15

Situation 2
A has 2 Utility
B has 4 Utility
C has 4 Utility
D has 4 Utility
Total utility: 13

A utilitarian would choose situation 1 as the "best" situation, it has the best total utility, 15. Someone following "position X" though, would pick situation 2. In situation 1, the person who is worst off is person D with only a utility of 1, while in situation 2, the person who is worst of is person A with a utility of 2. Because a follower of "theory X" prefers the sitaution which is best for those that have it the worst, he'd choose situation 2.

So, how should I call this variant consequentialist theory? It doesn't follow utilitarianism in its aggragationism (is that a word?), but I can't call it egalitarian either (I'm sure I can think of a situation in which they would oppose a more equal distribution of utility if it would make 1 person worse off)

Can anyone help? Maybe there is a word for "focussing on the one who has the fewest"?

Thanks a lot for your help.

[mucat]

In Game Theory, that's called a maximin strategy: you try to maximize the minimum result.

In philosophy, that's pretty much the position taken by John Rawls: he defines the most just social or economic policy as the one which is "of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society".

He wasn't taking a purely egalitarian position, because he believed that some sorts of inequality -- rewarding people who make an extraordinary contribution, for example -- would raise everyone's well-being, including the worst-off members of society. So these forms of inequality he would regard as just...and under the utility-scoring system you describe, they would also be considered a good choice.


EDIT: On further thought, I'm probably over-simplifying Rawls' position...he had a more complex definition of justice than I've described. In most cases, though, his conclusions came out pretty close to what you'd get from a pure maximin principle.

[Moff Chumley]

In the vernacular of my people, that's referred to as "being a mensch and not a wise-ass schmendrick", but that's probably not what you're looking for. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Firefox wants me to change "schmendrick" to schoolfriend. :smallsigh:

[SurlySeraph]

Prioritarian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prioritarianism)