John Rawls Defends Utilitarianism against a Common - Essay Example

? Philosophy: John Rawls Defends Utilitarianism Against a Common Criticism Regarding Punishment and Breaking Promises Inserts His/Her Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 10 April 2011 Outline Topic: Philosophy: John Rawls defends utilitarianism against a common criticism regarding punishment and breaking promises. Thesis: John Rawls argues punishment and breaking promises should have future beneficial effects. I Introduction A. John Rawls theorized the utilitarian must accept non-utilitarian reasons as an important part of justifying certain kinds of actions. B. Thesis C. Research Focus II. A. Rules are made for man under practice rules. B. Punishment is imposed for violations of the laws. C. There are many justifications for punishment. D. The judge and the legislator have different views in mind in the punishment implementation interpretation. E. Punishment is allowed to prevent the occurrence of more painful future punishments. F. Promises are routinely broken. III A. John Rawls proposed the utilitarian should incorporate non-utilitarian reasons as an important part of justifying certain kinds of activities. B. The non-utilitarian inputs beneficially affect utilitarianism. C. The utilitarian theory of punishment and breaking promises is grounded on the ethics theory the end justifies the means. D. Indeed, John Rawls correctly argues John Rawls argues punishment and breaking promises should have future beneficial effects.. John Rawls theorized the utilitarian must accept non-utilitarian reasons as an important part of justifying certain kinds of actions. The research focuses on the effect of non-utilitarian reasons on the Utilitarianism. The research focuses on the discussion of utilitarian theory of punishment and breaking promises. John Rawls defends utilitarianism against a common criticism regarding punishment and breaking promises. Rawls (44) emphasized that rules are made for man under practice rules. This negates the notion that man is made for the law. In layman’s language, the topic sentence states that the laws can be adjusted to fit the required outcome. For example, the parent can violate the policy “keep off the grass” if the parent steps on the grass to retrieve one’s one year old child. The parent is excused from complying with the “keep off the grass” policy because the circumstances require the automatic violation of the law. Rawls defines practice as the constant changing of currently established policy, law, statute or standard to fit a situation, for example punishment. The various types of punishment for crimes are constantly changed to be in tune with the changing environment. For example, the death sentence was abolished in many countries. Rawls emphasized that the current punishment practice can be challenged if the change will be more beneficial to society as a whole. In the “keep of the grass” situation (practice), Utilitarianism allows the person to violate the established practice. Rawls shows that the end justifies the means. In a game of chess, the mother violates the rules of chess in order to teach the child how to play the games. The mother’s action violates chess rules if the mother intentionally lets the child win. By violating the rules of chess, the mother is no longer playing chess. To reiterate, the root word of utilitarianism, utilism, states that a person must act morally in any given situation. Utilitarian moral ethics states that the best action or avoidance of action is determined by the usefulness of the implementation of an action or inaction. In short, the morally right act or avoidance of an act is grounded based on the outcome of the action or avoidance of action. Rawls emphasized (99) in the game of baseball, games have rules and well defined structures for changing the rules. The rules define the practice. Rules can be changed at some point in time. While the practice is in progress, changing the practice by changing the rules is prohibited. Similarly, rules on punishment and promises are changed as time goes by because the punishment should fit the end or purpose (prevention of future crimes). This is the essence of Rawls’ utilitarian doctrine on punishment and promises. John Rawls emphasized punishment is imposed for violations of the established laws. John Rawls (110) stated “under the influence of summary conception it is natural to suppose that the officials of a penal system, and one who has made a promise, may decide what to do in particular cases on utilitarian grounds”. For example, the Judge may reduce or increase the convicted felon’s sentence depending on the aggravating and mitigating evidences of the case in the implementation of utilitarian practice principles. In terms of whether punishment is justified, it depends. Society has accepted that punishment is automatic in most situations. Rawls (100) emphasized punishment is justifiable if it effectively promotes societal interests, otherwise it should be disallowed. John Rawls (100) reiterated there are many justifications for punishment. Punishment is grounded on retribution. The violators of the law should be meted their corresponding punishments. The criminal should be punished after being convicted for one's crimes. The severity of the punishment should be commensurate to the legal violations. Morally, it is better to punish the wrongdoer than to exempt them from punishment. In a given situation, the father explains to the son that a person is jailed as punishment for a crime committed (Rawls 100). The person has been convicted by a competent court in a fair trial. The judge implements the corresponding penalties stated by the law. The law is crafted, scrutinized, approved, and implemented by the law makers. John Rawls (116) emphasized that punishment is the normal right of the citizens. The citizens rely on the rules of law, due process of law, and court proceedings, and a guilty verdict for punishment to be carried out on the criminal. The legislators study and assign corresponding punishments for each criminal act. Murder has a different punishment. Theft has a different punishment. Rape has a different punishment. The law makers pick the punishments with the aim of serving society's interests, including retribution. Accordingly, Rawls (101) reiterated the judge and the legislator have different views in mind in the punishment implementation. The judge acts on the retribution side. The law makers act on the justification side. Thus, both sides have their own version of the criminal law's punishment issue. The law maker is the utilitarian. The law maker determines if the chosen punishment will be beneficial to society. Rawls (101) emphasized the judge focuses on retribution. The judge emphasizes that a person shall not be punished until proven guilty. The institution, the court, is used to try the suspect in a fair trial. The punishment can only be meted after the judge finally convicts the suspect based on evidences. Until then, the suspect is considered innocent until proven guilty. Thus the judge will not approve of any punishment unless the suspect has been given his or her day in court to prove one's innocence and to confront the witnesses. In fact, an innocent person may erroneously be convicted of a crime and punished based on fabricated evidences and false witnesses. Utilitarians are in one voice in stating the punishment should be imposed for violations of the established statutes or laws. However, the utilitarians are also united in stating that punishment should be fairly implemented if it serves society’s beneficial end. A rape victim will be happy to know that the perpetrator is languishing in jail. The son of a murdered person will be thankful to know that the murderer is locked behind bars as retribution for his crime against society. The utilitarians are opposed to implementation of punishment for the sake of implementation alone. Rawls (115) theorized the utilitarians are against assigning to penitentiaries the improper task of matching suffering with moral turpitude. The utilitarianism prefers jail facilities constructed to make the prisoners' stay comfortable. The utilitarianism prefer only the convicted law breakers are sent into the jail cells. Likewise, the jail officials should not inflict inhuman and unjust punishment or abuse on the prisoners. For example, the male guards should not rape the female convicts. The jail guards should treat the prisoners as human beings, not pigs or animals. The utilitarians espouse that punishment is allowed to prevent the occurrence of more painful future punishments (Rawls 115). The jails are made to correct the prisoners. The jails are made to train the prisoners to be future beneficial contributors to society. While in incarceration, the prisoners should be trained to certain jobs or skills. The skills will be useful when the prisoners are later released into society. Punishment in the form of jail terms are meant as preventive measures. The jails will teach the prisoners to be more productive members of society. As such, the prisoners will avoid going back to their old crime-laden ways. Utilitarians believe that punishment is allowed if it brings greater happiness to the greater number of persons in society. In terms of punishment, John Rawls reiterated a person is suffering from punishment if he is legally prevented from exercising one's liberties or rights. Incarceration prevents one's right to travel. The punishment should be imposed only if the suspect has exhausted all efforts to present his or her side of the crime story. After conviction, the judge states the corresponding penalty to be implemented. The law makers, the utilitarianism, have enshrined specific penalties for each crime in order to ensure the judge will implement fair punishment for crimes committed. Imposing a punishment that is not mentioned in the law would violate the prisoner's constitutional rights. In this case, the punishment is considered cruel and arbitrary. Similarly, Promises are routinely broken (Rawls 115). The promise breaker normally does not feel any guilt feeling. The promise breakers are utilitarians. The utilitarian can break promises if there are more benefits from breaking promises than keeping them. For example, Mr. Smith promises to give a cake in exchange for a bottle of wine. Mr. breaks his promise to give the cake. Mr. Smith will benefit more by breaking the promise. Instead, Mr. Smith will use the money to wine. Mr. Smith benefits because the wine is cheaper than the cake. Based on the above discussion, John Rawls proposed the utilitarian should incorporate non-utilitarian reasons as an important part of justifying certain kinds of activities. The non-utilitarian inputs beneficially affect utilitarianism. The utilitarian theory of punishment and breaking promises is grounded on the ethics theory the end justifies the means. Indeed, John Rawls correctly argues punishment and breaking promises should have future beneficial effects. Read More