Introduction This essay seeks to apply the ideas of Punishment and Utilitarianism to the speech made by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations on behalf of the Vietnam War veterans. The normative idea of utilitarianism purports that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”, thus it is submitted that firstly utilitarianism focuses on the subjective pleasures, satisfactions, or preferences of the actor and secondly, it requires the aggregation of all of the subjective goods of individuals and it considers as best the outcome in which the total of individual satisfactions is maximized. The speech delivered by John Kerry brings to the fore issues regarding the various moral implications and the utility of the actions of the American soldiers during the war. This essay examines whether the a utilitarian view of the defence of torture and punishment inflicted by the American soldiers in the Vietnam War provides a viable argument for justifying torture on those grounds. The speech by Kerry raises important issues which criticise a utilitarian view of the war by claiming that it ignores the core value of justice and retribution. The essay shall first detail the concept of Utilitarianism and shall then proceed to describe the role it plays in assigning penal sanctions, concluding with an analysis of both these concepts within the context of Kerry’s speech. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism requires that society be rightly ordered and should achieve justice though the various social institutions present in the society, by working to achieve the maximum possible aggregate utility. This idea has seen application in various fields such as social... ... middle of paper ... ... school of thought argues for the proportional application of sanctions, that is the punishment should be in accordance with the moral culpability of the individual, while the other school of thought submits that the passing of penal sanctions on a fellow human being is itself a wrongful act. With regards to the first school of thought, the steps to consider would be the quanta of punishment necessary to have a deterrent effect on the individual and on society. While the other school of thought needs to consider what the benchmark for justice really is, and the quanta of punishment required that will help in having a preventative effect and have a similar deterrent effect on society as a whole. Thus the idea such as rightful retribution in cases where self-defence plays an equally vital role in assessing what justice allows due to the prevailing morals of society.
The Theory of Utility teaches that we make our decisions in life based on the basic principle of maximizing happiness – which can be measured in pleasure and pain. Morality can also be defined as that which brings about the largest amount of happiness, and the least pain. Unlike other theories, however, Utility states the happiness of all is to be considered over the happiness of one. When faced with a choice, one must choose the option that will cause the greatest pleasure and the least pain. Applying this part of the Utilitarian argument to the supplied scenario, it would seem that Utility would say stealing the ice cream and breaking the law are the morally right course of action. However, Utility continues on in its teaching stating that
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
In this paper I will argue that Utilitarianism is a weak argument. According to John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness is pleasure and absence of pain (Mill, 114). At first glance the Utility perspective seems logical, however it often conflicts with justice and morality. I will begin by presenting the idea that good consequences do not always determine the right thing to do. Then I will provide the counterargument that utilitarians can bite the bullet. Next I will explain that Utilitarianism is too demanding for anyone to live by, and finally provide the counterarguments from the Utilitarianism perspective.
Mill, John Stuart. "Utilitarianism." Gendler, Tamar Szabo, Susanna Siegel and Steven M. Cahn. The Elements of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 77-80.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism can be used to describe the reasons why healthcare should be made available universally; why maximization of access to healthcare should be pursued for the greatest number of people (Wilson). Utilitarianism is a theory of consequences, in which the results of actions should determine their moral value. It can be summarized by the greatest happiness principle, which John Stuart Mill describes as “happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end” (Wilson). For Mill, pleasure is the prime motivator, and all beings must seek out maximum pleasure for themselves and others. This principle can be used to judge the morality of healthcare policies in terms of how they provide access to healthcare for the greatest number of people. In order to make the claim that healthcare is a human right is not sufficient; we must then be able to justify its expansion by illustrating its benefits (Wilson).
In Utilitarianism the aim of our actions is to achieve happiness for the greatest number of people. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, 1971). Utilitarianism directly appeals to human emotions and our reactions to different events. Emotions are a fundamental Way of Knowing and influence both ethical and economical theories. In most cultures there are fundame...
ABSTRACT: The concepts of Utility and Universality form an answer to the utilitarian topology of Utility and the General Good. Starting from the realization that utility cannot be determined materially, but only formally, the very premise of utilitarian philosophy has to be abandoned. The greatest good is not the good of the greatest number, but the universal good.
Pojman, Louis P. “Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism.” Exploring Ethics. Ed. Steven M. Cahn. Third ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. 126-134. Print.
Utilitarianism is the argument that all actions must be made for the greatest happiness for the greater number of people (Bentham, 42). However, utilitarianism cannot always be the basis of one’s decisions due to the fact that people need to look out for their own pain and pleasure before consulting others’ wellbeing. I will first explain the arguments of the utilitarianism ideal. Then I willl explain why this argument is unconvincing. Ultimately, I will then prove why people consider their own happiness before considering others. Thus showing the utilitarianism view is implausible due to the need for people to consider their own happiness when making decisions or else they themselves will be experiencing the most pain and unhappiness.
Regarding the justification of punishment philosophers are not of the same opinion. According to the utilitarian moral thinkers punishment can be justified solely by its consequences. That is to say, according to the utilitarian account of punishment 'A ought to be punished' means that A has done an act harmful to people and it needs to be prevented by punishment or the threat of it. So, it will be useful to punish A. Deontologists like Mabbott, Ewing and Hawkins, on the other hand, believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive grounds. That is to say, according to them, only the past fact that a man has committed a crime is sufficient enough to justify the punishment inflicted on him. But D.D. Raphael is found to reconcile between the two opposite views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved.
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
In its political philosophy utilitarianism provides an alternative to theories of natural law and the social contract by basing the authority of government and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, or measure of happiness gained. As an egalitarian doctrine, where everyone’s happiness counts equally, the rational, relatively straightforward nature of utilitarianism offers an attractive model for democratic government. It offers practical methods for deciding the morally right course of action - “...an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question” (Bentham, 1780). To discover what we should do in a given situation, we identify the various courses of action that we could take, then determine any foreseeable benefits and harms to all affected by the ramifications of our decision. In fact, some of the early pioneers of utilitarianism, such as Bentham and Mill, campaigned for equality in terms of women's suffrage, decriminalization of homosexuality, and abolition of slavery (Boralevi, 1984). Utilitarianism seems to support democracy as one could interpret governments working to promote the public interest and welfare of citizens as striving for liberty for the greatest amount of people. While utilitarianism at its heart is a theory that calls for progressive social change through peaceful political processes, there are some difficulties in relying on it as the sole method for moral decision-making. In this essay I will assess the effectiveness of utilitarianism as a philosophy of government by examining the arguments against it.
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...
Retribution is a justification for punishment and not a theory about substantive criminal law. But what justifies also limits. Retribution offers solid moral bases for opposing overcriminalization. Retribution is the type of punishment that indicating the vengeance or revenge. It is the idea of an ‘eye for an eye’ or ‘tooth for a tooth’ basis. The punishments given are for the response to the offender to the crime that he had done. For example, the death penalty to the crime of murder. It is a form of ‘striking back’ . Basically, there are two rationales in this theory of punishment are first, for the victims or their relatives in the case of death, that the state represent for their dissatisfaction towards the offender. Besides, this also protect from they having private retaliation to the offender. Second, is for the public at large that the public has a need for revenge. Punishment is considered an expression of justified anger by the victim due to the violation of trust demanded by society .