There are no human needs? What a monstrous thing to say! The very idea could only be entertained by someone living in relative comfort, someone whose needs are all taken care of - 'I’ve got mine, screw you' right?
I identify as a free market anarchist. Perhaps some will suspect that ideological convictions are leading me astray when I say that human needs don’t exist. I can imagine a defender of the state questioning my motives, for example. He or she might reason that because the modern state is the provider of people’s basic needs when other options fall through, the anarchist practises 'need denial' - either deliberately or subconsciously - in order to diminish the importance of the state.
This hypothetical statist is right at least about one thing: the way we think about human needs has political consequences. With my biases out in the open, I hope to explain why it’s correct to say that human needs don’t exist.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs attaches the greatest importance to physiological needs. This category corresponds to the sense of ‘human needs’ or ‘basic needs’ that I’m interested in. Take the claim ‘Man needs food’. We can be confident that a person making this claim doesn’t have poisoned food in mind. Food is regarded as a needed good thanks to its ability to extend life. How can we justify granting a unique status to goods, like food, that extend life? One way would be to maintain that life is of infinite value. Indeed, many claim that ‘You can’t put a price on human life.’ But do we really believe that? Does extending our life trump all other valued ends?
All of us, including those who avow that human life is of infinite value, knowingly do certain things that prima facie reduce the portion of the future we’re likely to survive long enough to experience.
Apparently most people do not place infinite value on extending their own lives. If they did, their lives would look very different. We can conclude that those goods that extend life are part of the same value scale as everything else. So life-extending goods compete with non-life-extending goods.
In the brilliant little book The Machinery of Freedom, in a chapter entitled “I Don’t Need Nothing”, David Friedman explains the troubles we get into by entertaining the idea that life is infinitely valuable:
additional medical care continues to bring improved health up to a very high level of medical expenditure, probably up to the point where medicine would absorb the entire national income. Does that mean that we should satisfy our ‘need’ for medical care by having everyone in the country become a doctor, save those absolutely needed for the production of food and shelter? Obviously not. Such a society would be no more attractive than the ‘life’ of the man who really regarded his life as infinitely valuable.
So there’s no justification for treating life-extending goods and services as though they are qualitatively different to non-life-extending goods and services.
Imagine an old man, tired of life. He wants to die. Imagine also that at a cost of many thousands of dollars, a machine could be assembled and operated that would prolong his life. To me it feels grotesque, or at best misleading, to say that he needs this life support machine. I trust that your moral intuition agrees with mine: when considering conflicting goals related to the continuation of this person’s life, the goals of the old man himself must have priority.
It's possible that the phrase ‘the old man needs the machine’ could be intended to communicate 'without the machine the man will die'. The title of this article could be objected to on the grounds that ‘human needs’ is harmless shorthand. ‘Bob needs food’ is just a quicker way of saying ‘Bob needs food if his goal is to extend his life’. But thinking clearly about such matters is already hard work. Do we really want to make contemplating important subjects even more difficult by using phrases that suggest dichotomies where none exist? By using this ‘needs’ shorthand we make the mistake of reification more likely, we risk fostering the belief that an unqualified need is something that can exist in reality. Friedman explains the danger here:
The idea of ‘need’ is dangerous because it strikes at the heart of the practical argument for freedom. That argument depends on recognizing that each person is best qualified to choose for himself which among a multitude of possible lives is best for him. If many of those choices involve ‘needs’, things of infinite value to one person which can be best determined by someone else, what is the use of freedom? If I disagree with the expert about my ‘needs’, I make, not a value judgement, but a mistake.
There might still be a lingering concern that when we’re talking about desires for goods that would prevent imminent death, ‘wants’ sounds too trivial. I think that in philosophically rigorous contexts that's just a bullet we need to bite. If necessary we can qualify wants as primary wants, intensely felt wants, longings or yearnings. The important thing is to stop implying the existence of unconditional needs.
If we agree that human needs are more properly considered wants, can there be any justification for maintaining that a starving person’s desperate desire for food is somehow qualitatively different from a wealthy person’s casual desire to visit the new bar in town? I don’t think so. To insist that it is doesn’t tap any additional explanatory power and violates the principle of parsimony. All matters of human desire can be accurately expressed in terms of subjective wants of differing strength.
Ironically, it turns out that the concept of 'human needs’ is dehumanising. It unjustifiably projects the goal to extend life on all persons, and falsely assumes that infinite value is attached to this goal. Positing categorical needs that exist divorced from individual values and goals brushes aside human difference, subjectivity, intentionality and reason–all of which exist even under the most desperate circumstances.
This story is based on articles I originally published here and here.
Here are some other things I wrote that you might appreciate:
I'm Tomasz Kaye. I made George Ought To Help and other pro-liberty propaganda films. You can support my work on Patreon.com. I'm also on Twitter and Facebook.
