The controversial topic of punishment provokes many strong reactions and opinions amongst people. When asked the questions, “what justifies punishment?” or “can punishment be justified at all?” the traditional debate between deterrence theory, retributive theory, and abolitionist theory are examined and discussed by individuals without even knowing that they are doing so. Deterrence theorists discuss punishment in terms of the balance of good versus evil produced from actions and focus their attention on the consequences of carrying out punishment. Retributivists discuss punishment in terms of wrongdoing, justifying the punishment on the grounds that it gives the offenders what they deserve. Abolitionists are strongly opposed to punishment. In this essay, I will provide my argument and justification for the deterrence theory of punishment, which is punishment through incarceration. I believe that …show more content…
Jeremy Bentham developed the “principle of utility” (Bentham, 6), which later became the “greatest happiness principle” (Bentham, 6) under philosopher John Stuart Mill. With this principle Bentham identified an ideology that focused on “utility producing benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness in order to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness” (Bentham, 7). The importance of happiness in a community is the foundation upon which my argument rests. Building on this concept, philosopher John Stuart Mill developed utilitarianism further, holding “that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is meant pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness is meant pain and the lack of pleasure” (Mill, 5). Mill’s advance in the theory provides the distinction between higher mental pleasures and lower sensual
Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view
The goal is to achieve happiness and to avoid pain. He believed that a self-gratifying worth in acting derives from how a person feels, the length it last, the certainty, results that follow after taking actions, the benefits, and avoidance of any form of negative outcome. The methods of utility describe the meaning of moral obligation. This is refereed the happiness for all affected by the action taken. Bentham indicates that social policies are exanimated by the effectiveness it has on the general population that is involved. However, Mills utilitarianism on moral theory is an extension from Bentham’s view. He suggested some improvements to Bentham’s structure, meaning, and application (Philosophy Pages,
Throughout the essay, Mills speaks highly of utilitarianism as a way to construct a happier more stable society. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (Mill 137). The ideas of such political philosophers such as Mills and Bentham enticed the modern world at the time of their publication, including the people of the U.S. The concept of utilitarianism started shaping America many years ago, and it is important to realize its consequence in modern day
John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism is a moral consequentialist view that maintains actions are good if they lead to happiness and bad if they lead to suffering. The same rationale can be applied to obstruction—whatever prevents suffering is morally good, and whatever prevents happiness is morally bad. It should be noted Mill characterizes happiness as “pleasure and the absence of pain” (104). He also puts forth that intellectual pleasures—such as the satisfaction that comes with finishing a paper, or having a successful long-term friendship—are better than the animalistic pleasures taken in eating or sex. Proponents of this moral theory believe the most moral action is one that maximizes total happiness for the greatest amount of people.
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
In the debate with the critics of utilitarianism Mill clarifies the principle of utility, which implies general happiness. General happiness requires no...
John Stuart Mill suggests that a person’s ethical decision-making process should be based solely upon the amount of happiness that the person can receive. Although Mill fully justifies himself, his approach lacks certain criteria for which happiness can be considered. Happiness should be judged, not only by pleasure, but by pain as well. This paper will examine Mill’s position on happiness, and the reasoning behind it. Showing where there are agreements and where there are disagreements will critique the theory of Utilitarianism. By showing the problems that the theory have will reveal what should make up ethical decision-making. John Stuart Mill supports and explains his reasoning in his book, Utilitarianism. Mill illustrates the guidelines of his theory. Mill defines utilitarianism as the quest for happiness. His main point is that one should guide his or her judgements by what will give pleasure. Mill believes that a person should always seek to gain pleasure and reject pain. Utilitarianism also states that the actions of a person should be based upon the “greatest happiness principle”. This principle states that ethical actions command the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill further explores the need for pleasure by noting “a being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy.” . He acknowledges that some pleasures are more alluring than others are. He adds to this by making known that when placing value in things to calculate pleasure, not only quantity important but quality as well. Mill’s criteria for happiness is easily understood, some statements that he gives are questionable. John Stuart Mill plainly laid out what he believes that the basis for ethical decision-making. First, the pursuit of pleasure is directly related to happiness. This idea can be easily accepted. It is natural for a person to focus his goals on things that will bring him pleasure. It would be absurd if someone’s goal in life was to be poor and starving. This being said, it does not mean that people are only happy due wealth but that no one’s goals are focused on poverty. Although there are many issues that can be agreeable with Mill, there are problems that exist with his theory of utilitarianism.
The theory of punishment as a whole is worth investigating as well. My largest argument against the theory of punishment is that it is not a fair or just operation. The concept of punishment is a way to intentionally harm people. This is not a just way of making a case right, or making a victim heal from any crime they may have been a part of. The victim is not compensated for the damage or harm caused to them. Punishment, in the retributive theory will really only do good in that it deters people from committing crime because they are scared of the punishment- but this simply does not work as well as it should. The restitution theory does not address the issue of who is entitled to cause harm to others, or punish said criminals.
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
Jeremy Bentham is widely regarded as the father of utilitarianism. He was born in 1748 into a family of lawyers and was himself, training to join the profession. During this process however, he became disillusioned by the state British law was in and set out to reform the system into a perfect one based on the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle,’ ‘the idea that pleasurable consequences are what qualify an action as being morally good’. Bentham observed that we are all governed by pain and pleasure; we all naturally aim to seek pleasure and avoid pain. He then decided that the best moral principle for governing our lives is one which uses this, the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle.’ This is that the amount of overall happiness or unhappiness that is caused by an action should determine whether an action is right or wrong. He stated,
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
This principle promotes a life of more pleasure than pain by choosing actions that produce more happiness. These are conscious actions made that follow a life of utility and act in accordance with the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Though Mill’s critics would argue that Utilitarianism is not a reasonable foundation for morality by not fulfilling a life of happiness, creating selfish or expedient people, and reducing human experience to animals, I would have to disagree. This principle promotes happiness and pleasure for all, along with aiding individuals to be less selfish, and an even slate for people of all characters. I find the “Greatest Happiness Principle” to be a relevant and altruistic foundation of morality. There is an emphasis on lives containing more pleasure than pain under the rule that one person cannot put their own happiness above others. I think a type of morality such as this would be more successful than other forms of morality because it wants every human life to be a life filled with more pleasure than pain. I see this as an appropriate foundation because it promotes good over bad, which is ultimately the function of morality as a whole. As written by Raymond Plant, “Since the principle of the individual is to try to satisfy his desires…the principle of society should be to try to advance the satisfactions of those who belong to the society…”
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
Both Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, had thoughts of the Principle of Utility and what it should be like. Bentham believes that the Principle of Utility depends on pain and pleasure and Mill believes that the Principle of Utility depends on higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Pain meaning evil and pleasure meaning good or greater benefits and higher pleasures meaning that action was good which would lead to a higher level of happiness and lower pleasures meaning bad which would lead to a decreasing level of happiness. Therefore, a normative ethical theory that has come through from this and it is Utilitarianism. The definition of Utilitarianism is a course of action that maximizes the total
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.