A Utilitarian position argues that an action is only right if it is successful in increasing the total happiness of an allotted number of affected individuals. Nevertheless, when the notion to increase the “greater good” includes the potential of killing an innocent human being in order to achieve this, it denotes the moral and ethical integrity of the entire school of thought. This essay will highlight the main ideas of Utilitarianism, the inherent selfishness that individuals have regarding their own acts of utilitarianism, and its inequality. It will be evident that although a Utilitarian position seems justifiable in certain scenarios, there will always be cracks in its moral values in others.
Utilitarianism is based on the idea that the greatest amount of happiness that can be gained for the greatest number of individuals establishes solid grounds for morality. As Jeremy Bentham stated regarding utilitarianism, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (Bentham, Jeremy). Nevertheless, it may not be the case because it is unable to explain what happens when the so-called “greater good” does not accurately represent moral righteousness. The utilitarian school of thought is based primarily off of the consequences of the actions, rather than the actions themselves. To a utilitarian, the right action can only be understood by the consequences that that action creates, thus causing a dominant problem in the relationship between what is “good” and what is morally “right” in any given scenario that the utilitarian is given. The problem with this is that even though the anticipated consequence of an action may increase the happiness of some, the action itself, could be of immoral value and could potentially create an ethical dilemma. One of the greatest assets of utilitarianism, however is its emphasize that common sense cannot always be trusted, neither can gut reactions. This causes individuals to look over every consequence that their action makes, but it could also justify things that on the surface look easy to justify, but underneath are not. This suggests that by following utilitarianism, there may be inherent forms of inequality and selfishness in its roots.
There is more to life than pleasure, and knowledge and often times, people spend more time trying to achieve these without recognizing the true effects of their actions. It is seen to this day in many areas of the world — innocent people being subjected to capital punishment. Utilitarianism, like previously stated, holds all of its emphasize on consequences and whether or not it will produce the best outcome for the greatest number of people. From a utilitarian perspective, capital punishment seems like a perfectly liable action that would inevitably increase the happiness of the individuals that were affected. This is different in a case that puts an innocent person in this situation. That being said, According to philosopher, John Stuart Mill, “Human beings have faculties more elevated than animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification” (J.S Mill). With this, it suggests that people have an inherent selfishness and anything they do must result in their own gratification. Due to this, it can potentially skew that individuals action because they are either consciously or subconsciously choosing a consequence that will enhance their own happiness. This relates to capital punishment because often times they do not think of the happiness and welfare of the convicted individual or their inner circle of relatives and friends. Without regard to that group of people, it indicates that a portion of affected individuals happiness is lessened due to the actions of others, which is opposite to the utilitarian argument. Although, utilitarianism has good intentions, it also causes certain individuals to be adversely affected. Utilitarianism suggests that people must treat everyone’s happiness as equal, regardless of who they are in relation to that individual. That being said, in regards to capital punishment, choosing to end ones life due to an unforgivable crime displaces the utilitarian’s argument for equal fairness. Using the utilitarian model to calculate whether an individual should be put to capital punishment would not work, due to the fact that not all those affected would become happier.
With utilitarianism, there are certain scenarios that cannot justify an individuals actions nor the consequences. Following with the capital punishment scenario, there will never be true equality in this type of scenario. This is because, like previously stated, individuals tend to make choices that results in their own happiness moreover another’s. Meaning there is no regard to the convicted individual or their family, which disregards the argument of utilitarianism that states people must treat each individual’s happiness as equal in importance. With no regard to the convicted individual, even if they were innocent of the crimes they are accused of, it indicates that there is no way that equal consideration can ever play a part in the utilitarian method. Condemning an innocent person to capital punishment or as a “scape-goat” not only is immoral, but it is extremely unethical. Even though it may give individuals of the community a sense of safety and content, it takes those things away from the punished individuals personal community. To think as a utilitarian, is to think of all the possible consequences that the desired action produces, but to not take into account the individual that may seem as a minority or unequal takes away from the true meaning of utilitarianism.
Overall, although Utilitarianism has moral intentions, sometimes it does not justify its actions. Only putting emphasize on the consequences and none on the action is not justification enough for doing an action that in any other context deemed immoral or unethical. Especially if using the utilitarian method to determine something as important as capital punishment. Due to the fact that a utilitarian position argues that an action is only right if it succeeds in increasing the total happiness of all affected individuals, it showcases that this is not always possible. Meaning utilitarianism is not always the best option in certain situations. Overall, it is evident that although utilitarianism has its good aspects, certain situations and moral dilemmas cause the negative aspects to overweight the positives.
References
Driver, Julia. “The History of Utilitarianism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 22 Sept. 2014, plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history.
Nathanson, Stephen. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/.
“Jeremy Bentham – Oxford Reference.” Jeremy Bentham – Oxford Reference, 31 Oct. 2016, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00000908.
2020-2-23-1582492519