Consideration of the Weaknesses of Utilitarianism by Guildford Four when Used as the Moral Guide of the State - Coursework Example

How does the Case of the 'Guildford Four' Illustrate the Weaknesses of Utilitarianism when used as the Moral Guide of the State? Based on the study of ethics, utilitarianism and deontology are two philosophical theories that are often used when deciding whether or not a given action made by an individual is morally accepted or not. The act of judging whether or not a given action is morally right or wrong is considered a very complex situation. For this reason, there had been quite a lot of philosophers who has tried to come up with philosophical theories when discussing sensitive issues related to morality. Jeremy Bentham, James Mill and John Stuart Mill are among the few classical utilitarian philosophers who happened to believe in the same concept, framework, and principles behind the study of utilitarianism (West 2006, p. 118). In this report, utilitarianism as proposed by Bentham will first be defined followed by discussing the reasons why “scape goat” objection is considered as a weakness similar to the Guilford Four. As proposed by Mill, the role of utilitarianism in our society will be tackled in relation to how it can provide as a better solution as compared to utilitarianism as proposed by Bentham. Utilitarianism as Proposed by Bentham Bentham was an English jurist, legal and social reformer, and a philosopher. As the father of utilitarianism, Bentham created the principle of utility which aims to promote and give each individual the maximum amount of happiness (Kenny 1998, pp. 283 – 284). Since human actions are a chain of cause and effect, Bentham’s advocacy of utilitarianism was based on happiness or pleasure in the absence of pain (Kemerling 2002; Bentham 1789, p. 1). Consequentialists strongly support the idea that the proper way of judging moral actions should be based on the consequences or end results of human actions (Kenny 1998, p. 285). In line with this, Bentham publicly introduced the theory of welfarism as a form of consequentialism (Timmons 2002, p. 107). The moral theory as suggested by Bentham was founded based on the assumption that the consequences of human action matters most when conducting a moral evaluation. Based on how the consequences of a human action could create happiness for human beings is merely a pure achievement of pleasure and prevention of pain (Kemerling 2002; Bentham 1789, p. 1). When estimating the moral status of human actions1, Bentham argued that the measurement of hedonistic value of human actions should be based on certainty and uncertainty, purity and extent of human actions, the intensity of pleasure and the duration wherein the sense of pleasure could last including the collateral benefits of the human action in order to prevent collateral harm (Timmons 2002, pp. 106 – 108; Dibie 1988, p. 315). It means that the experiencing pleasure and pain are classified as intrinsically good and bad respectively. With regards to political philosophy, Bentham’s proposed utilitarianism considers the happiness based on pleasure such that the happiness of the entire community and/or society as a whole is more important as compared to the happiness or self-interest of a single person. With this in mind, the principle of utility as suggested by Bentham means that the moral obligation of each individual should be based on “the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people affected by human actions” (Kenny 1998, pp. 283 – 284). In other words, Bentham’s strongly believe that the human actions and social institutions should aim at promoting the greatest utility – happiness and pleasure (Crisp 1997, p. 2). Since the greatest happiness should be for the greatest number of people, government corruption is considered as intrinsically bad since only few minorities among the government officials could enjoy the pleasure of having substantial amount of money due to misuse of political power and legal rights. At the expense of the majority, millions of people in developing countries could suffer from hunger, sickness, and lack of education because of greediness and hunger for more money and political power. In relation to political obligations of our people, the conformity of law behind the origin of rights and the legal system as a whole should be tested based on the principle of utility in order to ensure that our law enforces are able to distinguish between laws that are good from those that are bad (Kenny 1998, p. 284). Even though the theory of Bentham has strongly influenced the development of utilitarianism today, his theory has been subjected to a lot of criticism such that Bentham’s personal opinions with regards to utilitarianism are unsound (Mazlish 1975, p. 266). Since Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism was too general, his advocacy of utilitarianism cannot be directly applied in the study of human rights origin and the rule of law. Having in mind that Bentham failed to consider social questions related to the formation of national character, Mill argued that “Bentham needed a much deeper insight into the formation of character, and knowledge of the internal workings of human nature” (Mazlish 1975, p. 265). Similarity and Differences between Utilitarianism as Proposed by Bentham and Mill There are similarities between the utilitarianism as proposed by Bentham and Mill. In line with this, both philosophers claimed that social welfare is equal to happiness and that happiness is equal to pleasure (or the absence of pain) (West 2006, p. 118; Timmons 2002, p. 106). To prove that Bentham and Mill has the same point-of-view when it comes to their theories of utilitarianism, Mill stated that “the utilitarian doctrine is, that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end” (West 2006, p. 118). Similar to the idea of Bentham, Mill’s theory of utilitarianism also follows the consequential theory such that “human actions should be judged to be right or wrong according to their consequences” (West 2006, p. 118). As proposed by Bentham and Mill, classical utilitarianism is considered as a consequentialist moral theory such that right actions should produce good consequences whereas morally wrong actions can result to bad consequences (West 2006, p. 118). For instance: The value of desirable things like money, power, health, knowledge, and/or physical beauty is neutral not unless these things can as a means of giving each person a sense of pleasure. In line with this, desirable things can only be considered as intrinsically good in case these desirable things could promote a sense of pleasure. On the contrary, these desirable things can also be considered as something that is intrinsically bad in case things like money, power, health, knowledge, and/or physical beauty could cause other people to suffer from pain. Despite the similarities between the two classical theory of utilitarianism as proposed by Bentham and Mill, we cannot deny the fact that Mill’s proposed theory of utilitarianism was actually modified based from the study of Bentham. After carefully analyzing Bentham’s ideas with regards to utilitarianism, Mill decided to create his own theory of utilitarianism. Basically, the main purpose behind the development of utilitarian theory as proposed by Mill was to correct or address the limitations in Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism (Mazlish 1975, pp. 265 – 266). Aside from leaving behind the importance of time and place elements in analyzing the development of legislation, Mill argued that Bentham failed to consider the fact that motives in human nature is totally different from purely self-interest (Mazlish 1975, p. 267). Since each individual creates their own self-formation, self-development, and self-culture, utilitarianism as proposed by Mill includes not only the impact of motives in human nature but also self-interests. In order to correct the flaws in Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism, Mill decided to combine Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism with the views coming from the German Historical School of Law. Because of Mill’s effort to correct the flaws of Bentham in the study of utilitarianism, this theory as proposed by Mill is more applicable in many purposes particularly when it comes to the development of grounds in the study of moral issues. In other words, the approach used in the development of Mill’s theory of utilitarianism utilizes practical reasoning which could make the lives of our political and legal authorities so much simpler and more practical to use (West 2006, p. 118). According to Dibie (1988, p. 315), “action is right if and only if it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone…”. This is where the importance of estimating pleasure comes in. Unlike Mill’s qualitative approach in describing pleasure derived out of human actions, Bentham’s approach was quantitative in nature. In line with this, using pure quantitative approach prevented Bentham from being able to clearly identify and analyze factors that can contribute to morally acceptable and unacceptable human actions. As compared to Bentham’s quantitative hedonism, the use of Mill’s qualitative hedonism was more effective in terms of being able to descriptively distinguish physical pleasures2 from intellectual pleasures3 (Dibie 1988, p. 315). Discussion With regards to political philosophy, Dibie (1988, p. 315) revealed that “…an action is right if and only if it conforms to a set of rules, the general acceptance of which would produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for everyone”. Contrary to the statement provided by Dibie (1998), developing a set of political rules in the form of law will not always lead to actions that are morally good. Even though political rules and laws has already been set and implemented to give justice to everyone, it is wrong to believe that the classical theory of utililitarianism as suggested by Bentham and Mill is the right framework to use when deciding whether the action made by a person is morally right or wrong. Happened in the English court back in 1970s, the case of Guildford pub bombing a.k.a Guildford Four resulted to the wrongful conviction of the accused were wrongfully convicted (Stanford 2002; Franey 1989). Miscarriage of justice is one of the serious problems that is continuously happening in our society today. Even though it is the duty of lawyers to give justice to innocent people, many of the accused individuals failed to receive justice and fair treatment from the prosecutors. Eventually, this weakens the overall criminal justice system in UK. Since it is morally wrong to make one innocent person suffer from the crime done by other people, miscarriage of justice or wrongful conviction of the accused is morally unacceptable (Stinchcombe 1994). Specifically the IRA pub bombings that happened in Guildford killed five innocent people (Holt 2010). It is logical to give the five innocent people who died from the Guildford pub bombing justice. However, it is even more unworthy and wrong to believe that true and real justice was given to the victims by making other innocent people a victim of legal injustice. Bentham and Mill claimed that social welfare is equal to happiness and that happiness is equal to pleasure (or the absence of pain) (West 2006, p. 118; Timmons 2002, p. 106). Likewise, Bentham’s proposed utilitarianism considered happiness based on pleasure such that the happiness of the entire community and/or society as a whole is more important as compared to the happiness or self-interest of a single person. Upon analyzing the case of Guildford Four, it is wrong to believe that the idea as suggested by Bentham’s utilitarianism such that the happiness of the entire community or a society is more important than the self-interest of a single or few individuals. Given that the four wrongly convicted individuals in the case of Guildford Four were the once who suffer physically, emotionally, and mentally from the crime did not commit was only a scapegoating practice within the criminal justice system in UK. Conclusion and Recommendations Specifically the case of the 'Guildford Four' illustrates the weaknesses of utilitarianism when used as the moral guide of the state. In judging whether or not human action is intrinsically right (good) or wrong (evil), the role of the public policymakers comes in. As stated by Sir William Blackstone, “It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongly incarcerate one innocent man” (Bell, Swenson-Wright and Tybjerg, 2008, p. 151). Because of the increasing number of wrongful conviction in UK, developing a set of political rules in the form of law will not always lead to actions that are morally good. One way or the other, developing a set of political rules the the form of creating a legal system may only serve as a scapegoating tactics in the case of the true criminals. As compared to the theory of utilitarianism, the concept of deontology is totally different in the sense that deontology remains focus on judging an action by observing the righteousness or wrongness of an action regardless of whether the end result of the action is good or evil (Nishukan 2007). Instead of taking into consideration the end-result of an action, Immanuel Kant suggest the use of deontology more than the classical utilitarianism since deontology judges moral issues by carefully examining the type of actions being committed by a person (Kay 1997). In most cases, deontology disagree with the idea that the human rights of each individual to perform an action gives them the freedom to justify themselves by taking into consideration the consequences of their action as an way of getting away with the moral obligation a person has with another person or to the society (Frankena 1973, p. 15). Contrary with the theory of utilitarianism, deontology brings in the ‘fairness and equality’ as a standard moral requirement instead of a moral goal (Scanlon 1978, pp. 99 – 100). According to Kay (1997), deontology is a ‘duty-based ethics’. For this reason, each person should do only what is good and avoid evil. *** End *** References Bell, A., J. Swenson-Wright and K. Tybjerg, 2008. Evidence. Cambridge University Press. Bentham, J., 1789. The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press . Crisp, R., 1997. Routledge philosophy guidebook to Mill on utilitarianism. Routledge. Dibie, R., 1988. Public management and sustainable development in Nigeria: military. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Franeka, W. K., 1973. Ethics. 2nd Edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Franey, R., 1989, October 18. Guardian. Trial and error. Campaigners in the case of the Guildford four were convinced that a miscarriage of justice had occurred - but persuading the authorities to reconsider the evidence proved astonishingly difficult. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9th March 2011]. Holt, R., 2010, June 4. The Telegraph. The Guildford Four: in the name of justice. As one of the Guildford Four, Gerry Conlon spent 15 years in prison for an IRA campaign he knew nothing about. More than 20 years later he is still fighting for justice. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9th March 2011]. Kay, C.D., 1997, January 20. Notes on DEONTOLOGY. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9th March 2011]. Kemerling, G., 2002, February 21. Utilitarianism. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9th March 2011]. Kenny, A., 1998. A brief history of western philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Mazlish, B., 1975. James and John Stuart Mill: father and son in the nineteenth century. Basic Books Inc. Mill, J. and Bentham, J., 1987. Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Penguin Group. Nishukan, N., 2007, November 21. Deontology and Utilitarianism. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9th March 2011]. Scanlon, T., 1978. Rights, Goals and Fairness. In Stuart Hampshire (ed.) "Public and Private Morality". Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Stanford, P., 2002, June 20. The Independent. Justice and Truth: The Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven, by Patrick Victory. A reminder of the need for vigilance against injustice. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9th March 2011]. Stinchcombe, A., 1994. The Acceptability of Executing the Innocent. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice , 33(4), pp. 304-318. Timmons, T., 2002. Moral theory: an introduction. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. West, H., 2006. The Blackwell guide to Mill's Utilitarianism. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Read More