As libertarians want to minimize state intervention, it would be consistent with their position, and if permitting this would maximize happiness and well-being it would be consistent with utilitarianism.

The libertarian could argue that as it's a voluntary interaction, the state should not interfere with people's free choices. This could be on the basis that choice is in itself valuable, or that choice leads to something that is valuable, eg. happiness/well-being.

The utilitarian could argue that the result leads to less people being brought into existence, and that the happiness/well-being experience by the female drug addicts receiving the $300 would pale in comparison to the happiness/well-being that would otherwise be experienced by the unborn. Alternatively they could argue that were the female drug addicts to reproduce, the potential persons would have such a poor quality of life, that it would maximize happiness/well-being the most by permitting the female drug addicts to receive the $300 and guaranteeing that the potential persons do not come into existence.

Wouldn´t an utilitarian support the creation of a new life under any circumstances? Or is there a degree in which a new life not being born is better than it being born?

Utilitarianism vs Libertarianism on: Should private charities be permitted to pay female drug addicts $300 to undergo sterilization?

I found this very interesting. What do you guys think Libertarianism vs Utilitarianism would argue? — rsgkh

Just to clarify... Is the charity paying for the sterilisation or paying female drug addicts to get sterilised?

they are paying the addicts $300 in exchange for a verbal agreement that they will get sterilized. Many do follow through with this, but some women just take the 300$ and use it for other things.

Slightly off topic, but isn't libertarianism just a form of utilitarianism that places some concept of "freedom" as the goal of the utility function?

they are paying the addicts $300 in exchange for a verbal agreement that they will get sterilized. Many do follow through with this, but some women just take the 300$ and use it for other things. — rsgkh

Thanks. Then the answer is no, I think. It is illiberal to compel someone to give up their future liberty by exploiting their current desperation.

rsgkh is not right here, does it really make sense that an organization would just give impoverished drug addicts $300 just for promising to get sterilized? vice did a 10 minute piece on this that you can find on youtube and i can assure you they're not that dumb.

A Negative Utilitarian focuses on reducing suffering. If a potential life is likely to be net suffering, it would be consistent for them to oppose its birth.

Should private charities be permitted to pay — rsgkh

Who or what stops them?

Alternatively they could argue that were the female drug addicts to reproduce, the potential persons would have such a poor quality of life, that it would maximize happiness/well-being the most by permitting the female drug addicts to receive the $300 and guaranteeing that the potential persons do not come into existence. — Down The Rabbit Hole

But the utilitarian could also argue that her reproduction ensures that there are always enough people to look down on and hence raises the overall well-being as one hobo in the streets can make hundreds if not thousands of people more happy with their lives. Not necessarily only the natural feeling of superiority but also being able to prove one selves goodness and benevolence by throwing that superfluous 5 cents into the hat... So in general she could serve the political stability of many regimes as they need someone even for lower-class ppl, who yet serve their role as expandable gear in the maching, to kick down to.