Limits of Utilitarian Distinct Rights - Essay Example

The limits of utilitarian philosophy In this essay I will explain the philosophy of utilitarianism and point out some of its strengths and weaknesses. Then I will discuss how individual rights fits in with this philosophy, and why utilitarianism is often criticised for its attitude towards individual rights. I will explain why I do not believe in a utilitarian approach to rights, especially when it comes to the challenges of the 21st Century. Utilitarianism is a philosophy that was developed in the 19th Century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. They said that the best way of deciding what a person should do and how they should behave, is the rule that whatever happens as a result of that action is the most important thing. This is an outcomes-based philosophy. The word ‘utility’ means usefulness. In utilitarian philosophy, if something is useful then it is ethically good but if it is not useful then it is ethically inferior. The consequences of your action are more important than anything else in deciding whether the action is moral. The intention and emotion which you had, or why you decided to act that way, are not important. The result of actions should lead to the ‘greatest common good’. In this idea, what counts is that your action must cause the greatest happiness or pleasure, among the greatest number of people as possible. There are different ways of understanding this happiness but generally it means that people should feel less suffering, or more satisfaction and comfort. There are important aspects of this philosophy in politics. For example, if one person gets a lot of pleasure out of murdering others, then the pleasure of that one person must be weighed up against the suffering he causes to all the others. It is clear that the murdering cannot be ethically justified. The combined suffering off all the victims and their families is obviously more important than the murderer’s pleasure. If a thousand slaves work under conditions of great suffering, for a few very happy capitalists, then again the combined suffering of the larger group does not justify the actions of the few. These points show the strength of utilitarianism and why it was popular in its time. It was in the context of the abolition of slavery and the creation of democratic government. People were focused on creating fair and moral societies. The weakness of utilitarianism is that it is too simple. It is not always possible to say what the results of an action will be and whether it will cause suffering or happiness, or how much and to who. Also it does not explain the complexity of human nature. What the person was hoping, thinking or feeling when he or she did the action are just ignored. Another weakness is that we do not understand the nature of consciousness. You cannot say that the suffering of one person can be multiplied by a hundred to equal the suffering of a hundred people. Or that the happiness of ten people is exactly equal to ten times the happiness of one person. Happiness and suffering are states of mind that cannot be calculated mathematically, but that is what utilitarians try to do. They try to sum or minus a state of mind. The individual’s state of mind, as well as his or her rights (e.g. the right to freedom, choice and dignity) are not recognised or explained by utilitarianism. People are seen as being a sort of action machine, and the outcomes of their actions are more important than their state of mind, ethical reasoning ability, or human rights. This is dehumanising. It is the main reason why utilitarianism is often criticised for not putting enough value on human rights or individual rights. Also it is not clear exactly what the boundaries are between one person and another. If a person is suffering then it can affect their friends and family too. Happiness can also be catchy because we all influence each other as social beings. So it is impossible to say where suffering and happiness belong only to one person or group. So it is also impossible to say exactly what the greatest common good is. If there are two groups each with ten people in them, and one group is happy about ‘Event A’ while the other is unhappy about ‘Event A’, then it is not clear what the greatest common good is. Another weakness is that in the 21st Century we have very different problems from the ones in the 19th Century. We are starting to realise that not only are human rights important, but animal rights too. Conservation of the natural world is important, even though the consciousness of things like trees and forests and oceans is probably not the same as human consciousness. Animals also have feelings and they are conscious even if they do not have the intellect that humans have. Some people also say that plants and rivers and oceans do have their own types of consciousness too. If the sea is polluted by human beings, does it suffer or does it not feel anything? If an animal is killed, does its suffering cause other animals to suffer? In an abattoir the animals know what is happening and they show fear and sorrow when they see other animals being killed ahead of them. They try to avoid being killed but they cannot. Animals have parents and children, and when a calf is taken away from its mother then both of them suffer. Just because there may be ten human beings who then enjoy eating the calf’s meat, does this justify the suffering that is caused to the animals? These kinds of issues make utilitarianism less relevant today than at the time it was formed. The question about individual rights does not apply only to human beings but also to animals, and to the earth itself. The earth does not have human rights in the sense we usually think of it, but surely it has aright to be kept clean and beautiful. The recent oil spill is another example. It has caused a lot of suffering to birds, sea life, and wildlife. It has also caused suffering for many people whose livelihood has been affected or even who lost their lives in the accident. Yet the ‘greater good’ is that people have been taking oil from the earth to fuel their lifestyles, to increase their wealth, comfort and happiness. But not enough care has been shown towards the environment and its rights. The rights of the sea birds to have a safe place to live have been taken away by humans. Individual humans who are not happy with things do not have much say, so they are resorting to petitions to show that it is a community problem and not just individuals. In this case we see that there is almost no care for individual rights, whether of birds, fish, the oceans or individual people. In utilitarian terms the oil spill is acceptable because it is still part of the greater or common good. There are still far more people who want oil to fuel their lifestyles, and who have not been directly harmed by the spill, compared with those who are more concerned about caring for birds and fish. But the common good may be something that includes the rights of all. Nice lifestyles may still be possible if we start using more solar and wind power. The utilitarian outcome of a nice lifestyle is not the most important thing. What is more important is to look after our lifestyles together with individual rights for humans, birds, fish, trees, oceans and everything else on the planet. Read More