Nozick’s Utility Monster in Mythic Europe

Nozick’s Utility Monster is a thought experiment designed to poke a hole in the worldview of utilitarians, but it is adaptable to roleplaying games. As is becoming customary for these posts based on philosophy, I need to begin by oversimplifying a basic concept. Let’s talk about utility and cake.

Imagine there is a cake. How is it that we determine the just division of the cake between yourself and a friend of yours? If you are in Norman England, the law basically said that since everything in Britain belonged to the king,  the cake was the king’s, possibly with a slice off the side for the clergy. Roll on a few hundred years and many rich families owned various things, and the answer to the cake problem was “Well, who owns the cake?” There was eventually an interesting counter-answer, which was “Whose labour was mixed with the ingredients to make the cake?” between these two, utilitarianism can seem like a useful mean. It asks “How is the cake used as a tool to generate the greatest happiness?” Then, because there’s nothing economists like more than jargon, they call this happiness utility and attempt to graph it, using money foregone as one simple measure.

So: utilitarianism is basically the idea that “whatever provides the greatest amount of happiness is right”. Now, that’s an oversimplification, and real, modern utilitarians layer that with caveats, but that’s a core idea. Happiness is what matters. Maximising it is good. This leads to more equal outcomes than either of those other models, therefore it is egalitarian, at least in comparison.

Robert Nozick’s point, to be oversimplified is this: say you are sharing a chocolate cake with a friend, and neither of you have some stronger systemic right to the cake, the bypassing of which would prevent future people having cakes. Most people would cut the cake down the middle.

Let’s call your friend Bob. Bob loves chocolate. Bob is a super-taster, so he can enjoy chocolate in ways you can’t even imagine. Is it still ethical to cut the cake down the middle? Bob gets a lot more out of the cake than you do. Is it right for you to have half the cake, which for you is basically nice, when it could instead be given to Bob, for who is is a transcendent and glorious experience? Shouldn’t, in short, all the cake go to Bob?

Shouldn’t all the cake, always go to Bob?  Doesn’t that increase global happiness the most?  You feel a bit put out by the loss of cake, but Bob is basically swimming in happiness, so in either total or average terms, utility is up tremendously if you no longer ever have any cake.

Now, Bob is one of Nozick’s Utility Monsters, but we can push it further, as Nozick does, to make it more suited for gaming.

Imagine Bob is a super-taster, and reaches heights of ecstasy not understood by mere mortals, but to have this experience, he needs to eat people. Nozick points out that in this thought experiment, a utilitarian has a moral duty to feed himself to the monster. Dying in Bob’s mouth becomes a obligation, and failing to die becomes evil.

This is because utilitarianism is consequentialist: what matters to utilitarians is outcomes, not motives. In Mythic Europe, the existence of the particular God that is there makes utilitarianism false, because obedience matters more than outcomes. He says “Don’t feed the monsters!” thereby defining evil as non-consequentialist. That being said, characters can fall into this error, if they believe there is any highest value other than Divine obedience. The obvious group to tempt with this is House Jerbiton.

If “beauty is all that pleases” as their motto says, if it is the highest value, is it right to feed peasants to a demon which either is transcendentally beautiful, or has the Muse virtue, allowing the creation of transcendent beauty?  This gives diabolists something to want other than unspecified power.

Musa Laeta: The fallen angel who was Beauty

Order: Lord of the False Gods
Infernal Might: 30 (Imaginem)
Characteristics: Int +2, Per +3, Pre +8, Com +5, Str -1, Sta -1, Dex +2, Qik +5
Size: +2
Confidence: 2 (6 points)
Virtues and Flaws: n/a
Personality Traits: Proud +6
Reputations:  Corrupting Muse +5 (demons)
Combat:
Wings like stained glass glass: Init +8, Attack +14*, Defense +9*, Damage +12
* includes specialisation
Soak: 0: is aware of how fragile it is.
Wound Penalties: –1 (1–7), –3 (8–14), –5 (15-21), Incapacitated (22-29), Dead (30+)
Abilities: unclear, but assume Brawl 8 (wings), Hunt 8 (artists).
Powers:

• Coagulation*: 3 points, Init +4, Terram: Can manufacture a solid body out         of ambient matter.
• Dark Muse: 5 points, Init -10, Mentem: The demon can grant the Free Expression virtue to humans. While granting the Virtue, its Might Pool is reduced by the cost of the Virtue. It generally has no more than three direct servants at any time. These tend to form love triangles and murder each other. Occasionally she will stir up her followers by granting her power to a fourth minion, but only for sufficient time to create a single work.
  Envisioning* 1 or 5 points, Init +5, Mentem: Can enter dreams and cause waking
  dreams.
• Obsession*: 1-3 points, Init 0, Vim. Can impose the sin of Pride. Uses it particularly to convince artists of the great value of their work.
  Shroud the Stench of the Pit: variable points, Init +8, Vim. This complicated power allows infernal powers to be shrouded so they seem Magical, Faerie or mundane. It does not control minds, so powers made to seem mundane must be subtle. The cost of this power is points equal to the cost of the power shrouded.
• The Wealth of Nations: 3 points, Init +5, varies (as per form of summoned thing): Musa Laeta can summon riches in various forms, up to the value of one pound of gold per Might point spent.

* See Realms of Power : The Infernal pp 31-2.

Equipment: Nil.
Weakness:  Cannot destroy works of inspired beauty.
Vis: 6 pawn, Imaginem.
Appearance: A great butterfly of cracked glass and dripping lead.

Photo credit: ankakay via Foter.com / CC BY