Theory of Utilitarianism and Jurisprudence - Essay Example

Theory of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism promotes the notion that individuals should develop rational thinking, which it deems to be indispensable forleading a virtuous life. This philosophy was developed by a number of eminent thinkers, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Some of the other philosophers who contributed to this concept included Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, and John Locke (Utiliatarianism, 2000). Under this concept, rational self – interest is the fundamental reason for the existence of humans. It is natural for humans to avoid pain, suffering and unhappiness. Self – interests, include the acquisition of pleasure and happiness. A society is a group of individuals who strive hard to obtain the maximum benefit from the resources at their disposal (Utiliatarianism, 2000). The relationships they form with other individuals are aimed at achieving the objective of happiness. The concept of utilitarianism states that deriving pleasure and happiness from life is the best way to lead one’s life (Utiliatarianism, 2000). Utilitarians, in addition to promoting this way of life, declare that if individuals strive to use their rational self – interests, then it will benefit society at large. Jeremy Bentham was a renowned British thinker and reformer. He propounded a moral theory, which promoted the thought that the outcome of human action determined the value of such action. Consequently, humans undertake acts that provide them with happiness, whilst avoiding pain or suffering. The hedonistic value of any act could be determined by considering various factors, such as the intensity of the pleasure experienced, the time for which such pleasure lasts, and the possibility it holds out for avoiding collateral harm (Kemerling, 2002). According to Bentham, the happiness of any community is the sum of its individual human interests. The utilitarian principle provides a definition of the moral obligation of individuals. The happiness of a community is based on the actions of its members, which can be harmed by the actions of individuals in the community. Bentham conjectured that social policies could also be evaluated in a similar manner (Kemerling, 2002). It was his considered opinion that these could be assessed by their effect on the well being of the community and the individuals living in it. The objective behind inflicting punishment on criminals was to reduce crime. Punishment effectively reduces crime as it discourages individuals from committing criminal acts. As such, punishment drastically alters the consequences of actions; and makes the perpetrators, aware of the future pain that they would have to undergo, in comparison to any possible gain that could accrue from such acts (Kemerling, 2002). The principle of utilitarianism can promote justice in society. Justice upholds the rights of people, such as property rights; and it restores good faith and impartiality in the community. The utilitarian principle ensures all these important components of society. Society could improve to a substantial extent, if the courts were to impose sanctions on the basis of utilitarian principles (Kemerling, 2002). Punishing criminals is a retributive emotion that prevails in society, and it is a crucial factor in the criminal justice system. Bentham did not perceive the necessity to provide a methodical justification for his theory of utilitarianism. He regarded his detractors as prejudiced or bemused. Mill on the other hand, provided an adequate defence for his version of utilitarianism. In addition, he attempted to establish that human happiness was the basic good. He introduced consequentiality, in this context; and assumed that right conduct must advance the good. However, he failed to provide a clear explanation as to why an individual was to consider the good of others to be equivalent to that of his own. Another famous utilitarian Henry Sidgwick stated that all basic values, including the principle of utilitarianism were based on intuitions (Utilitarianism. In Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia, 1996). Utilitarianism is a deceptively simple concept. According to John Stuart Mill, it promotes happiness, on being applied correctly. At the same time, the improper application of this principle would deprive individuals of their happiness. Happiness is to be understood as pleasure, without pain. Unhappiness indicates pain and the deprivation of pleasure. The outcome of an act serves to determine its quality. Not surprisingly, actions are assessed by the amount of pleasure obtained, by all the concerned individuals from such actions (Utilitarianism. In A Dictionary of Philosophy, Macmillan, 2002). The objective is to bestow the greatest happiness upon the largest number of individuals. Thomas Hill Green established separate principles of good and moral good. He stated that the good can be understood as the satisfaction of desires. The welfare of society depends on the actions of its members. People should perform these activities for the good of the community. The perfection they exhibit in performing these activities constitutes the moral good. This perfection or moral good promotes the interests of society, as well as that of its members(Dimova-Cookson, 2009). Green focused on human nature, and differentiated it into the manner in which human nature actually works and how it should work. Another idea put forth by Green was that human beings can undergo a progression from a lower stage to a higher stage. Human nature has the capacity to achieve perfection. This process is termed the process of self development. It serves to differentiate between ordinary good and moral good. The moral good relates to the desire to do good, for its own sake. On the other hand the aim of ordinary good is to achieve some benefit for the individual (Dimova-Cookson, 2009). Pleasure results in a feeling of satisfaction that brings about an end to pain. Moral good is also related to human desire, because it helps in attaining self development. With development, good is desired for its own sake and not for personal benefit. One should desire the good of others, rather than just one’s own good. Green established the concept of moral good, whereas, Mill introduced the concept of higher pleasures. There are some similarities, between them. Mill attempted to establish a highly refined and sophisticated notion of pleasure (Dimova-Cookson, 2009). To this end, he attempted to integrate personal perfection with care for others. The concept of moral good in Green’s theory and that of higher pleasures in Mill’s theory, depict a degree of similarity. Mill attempted to combine care for others with individual excellence. This could prove to be problematic, because a stretching of the concept of higher pleasure could result in a loss of pain, and the latter is essential to the concept of higher pleasure . Green’s theory is superior to Mill’s theory, because of Green’s realisation that there could be a conflict of interests, with respect to an attempt to achieve ordinary good, as compared to an endeavour to attain moral good. Any attempt at attaining the moral good, presupposes the eschewing of personal interest (Dimova-Cookson, 2009). Such sacrifice of individual interests could involve suffering. Moore regarded Mill’s concept of utilitarianism as comprising of two propositions. The first of these states that the good is the desired, and the second states that pleasure alone is to be desired. Moore introduced a string of arguments for the second step of Mill’s argument(J.S. Mill and G.E. Moore: Utilitarianism). The latter had contended that individuals desired objects, which were merely a means to obtain pleasure. He went on to declare that some things like money were desired as ends in themselves. Mill expatiated on this theme and declared that money had transformed itself into a part of the end. Moore subjected this argument to derision, and declared that Mill had commingled means and ends, which were two distinct entities (J.S. Mill and G.E. Moore: Utilitarianism). The attacks launched by Moore against the thoughts propounded by Mill, can be construed to be unjustified to some extent. This is on account of the fact that Mill’s ideas had been praised by Aristotelian scholars. The concept of end involves considerable complexity (J.S. Mill and G.E. Moore: Utilitarianism). According to this concept, means become ends and vice versa. This process was found to be praiseworthy by the Aristotelian school. Mill, on the other hand, was of the opinion that this idea was ridiculous. Moore was one of the first of the analytic philosophers. They employed tools that left much to be desired, in comparison to the tools used by modern philosophers (J.S. Mill and G.E. Moore: Utilitarianism). Mill stated that the happiness of all is the good of all. He deduced this concept from the concept that the happiness of each is the good of each. Moore criticised this inference and contended that the correct implication was that the happiness of all is the good of each. However, some commentators have stated that this was also fallacious, because each individual strives for his own happiness, and that the general happiness must be desired by all (J.S. Mill and G.E. Moore: Utilitarianism). From the utilitarian point of view, a person can lead a life that proves to be beneficial for the other members of society. Individuals undergo pain and death, for the sake of those who are close to them. It is to be realised that in the absence of such considerations, an individual could decide to end his life. Similarly, the utilitarian point of view could recommend that a person should end his life, if society or his family members were being unbearably burdened, from the financial perspective, or were being subjected to intolerable pain (LeBaron, 1999). The theories of ethical egoism and utilitarianism illustrate that family members are prone to experience an ethical dilemma. This dilemma arises in cases where an incompetent individual cannot decide whether to continue to live. Egoism may persuade the family to allow an incompetent individual to continue living, as they could find it difficult to allow such a person to die (LeBaron, 1999). The utilitarian approach could influence the family members to keep the person alive. However, they may also allow the individual to die, if the continuance of the life of that person were to prove burdensome to society and the family members. This situation is witnessed in cases of euthanasia. In these instances, family members have been seen to beseech the attending doctors to accelerate the death of a relative, who is suffering from terminal illness or undergoing unbearable suffering. It is perceived that such death would prevent expenditure on medical treatment (LeBaron, 1999). As such, it is also believed that the withdrawal of medical treatment will be in the best interests of the patient. Moreover, the utilitarian approach exhorts the people to save a life if there is any possibility of saving the life. Such preservation of life would be beneficial to society. On the other hand, individuals should be permitted to decide whether to live or to die, and the family members should permit an individual to exercise this choice. The provision of medical treatment entails considerable expenditure (LeBaron, 1999). Hence, it is to be determined, whether the treatment should be continued, or whether these resources are to be made available to a patient who has better prospects of survival. Doctors face a major ethical dilemma. The ethical standards to be adhered to by physicians, is centred on the Hippocratic Oath; which requires them to preserve life at any cost. Society requires doctors to preserve life, as it the most precious thing on earth. It is this very reasoning that constitutes the bedrock of the arguments against the practice of euthanasia (LeBaron, 1999). In marked contrast to this school of thinking, there is the all important concept of patient autonomy and the rights of a patient. The practice of euthanasia supports this concept, and doctors are under a duty to respect the wishes of their patients. In respect of patients in a permanent vegetative state, the family members or carers may require the doctor to withdraw treatment. In such instances, the doctor is duty bound to respect these requirements (LeBaron, 1999). Thus, there is a strident call from the proponents of euthanasia to assert privacy and self determination interests, in respect of the right to die. In my opinion any theory or principle should ultimately benefit society. This has been the belief of a number of renowned theorists. The final objective of any social theory is the maximum public good. According to the theory of utilitarianism, any action that benefits the majority is an appropriate act. The guiding thought in philosophy states that conduct should be determined by the principle that the greatest good should be bestowed upon the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism justifies punishment, by contending that the punishment of offenders has utility value for society; where utility connotes some future benefit to society, on account of the punishment. The concept of utility plays an important role in making policy decisions regarding the modern welfare state. The state should accord the highest priority to the welfare of the state. As such, in this problem, the state imposed certain restrictions for the benefit of the state, in respect of some minority religious groups. The aim of these restrictions was to safeguard the interests of society. In the modern environment, the conflict between utility and liberty is apparent, in many spheres. There can be and should be no objection if liberty is restricted to some extent, so as to ensure the good of the majority. In our present problem, the human rights group has alleged that this legislation has restricted the freedom of some groups. As per the utilitarian theory, the government’s decision stands to benefit the majority of the citizens. Any action is considered to be justified, as long as it promotes the common good. The application of the Utilitarian theory to euthanasia can be witnessed in AIredale NHS Trust v Bland, wherein nutrition and medication to Tony Bland, a patient in a permanent vegetative state, was withdrawn, as ordered by the court. This was done in the best interests of the patient, his parents and society at large. It was also clearly perceived that the medication and hospital care being provided to Bland could be employed to greater benefit, in respect of patients who held out hope of recovery. People have certain rights that must be respected by each and every member of society. Similarly, the rights of a patient have also to be upheld. In the medical field, the accountability aspect has gained prominence, due to the enactment of The Human Rights Act. In accordance with this Act, no treatment can be given to the patients, without their consent, until and unless certain conditions are fulfilled. In some cases the court had ordered forcible treatment, which was against the wishes of the patient, since it was considered necessary, in the best interests of the patient, as well as the society. Since society at large is benefited, the court permitted the intrusion of medical procedures, which breached the right of liberty of the patient. The interests of the rest of society are of vital importance, whilst promoting the human rights of a patient. In some cases the court permitted the employment of anti- psychotic drugs on patients, against their will. While arriving at this decision, the court considered the potential benefit to the patient on taking this drug; and the potential harm to society, if he failed to take the drug (R(On the application of PS) v (1) Responsible Medical Officer , 2003). A judicious evaluation convinced the court that in the best interests of society, the patient should be administered the drug. As such, individual liberty was curtailed for the good of the society. The Utilitarian theory, per se, will be applicable in instances where the society will be at risk, in the absence of such intervention, even if it is against the wishes of the patients and even if it is in violation of their liberty. A major criticism levelled against utilitarianism is that it the latter focuses on the outcome of an action, and tends to ignore the intention behind that action. A large section of the people considers the desire or intention that motivates a person to act, as being of significance. This seems to be reasonable, because an act that intended to cause injury or harm could unwittingly result in good, and it would be equated to an act performed with the intention to do good. This has been opposed by several adherents to the theory of Utilitarianism, who contend that this theory takes in its ambit, not only the results, but also the desires, rules, institutions and punishment. In support of this argument, they state that bad intentions may result in harm to the performer of the action and to others, even if outcome is not a bad action. The debate between the proponents and opponents of Utilitarianism, is never ending. This can be attributed, in part, to this doctrine being one of the principal moral theories of contemporary thought. The decisions taken in accordance with this theory, admit of contradiction. It is strongly believed by the Utilitarians that an act should be aimed at maximising well being. This can be perceived as a form of consequentialism, wherein the objective is to secure happiness. However, this theory tends to disregard the distribution of utility amongst the individual members of society. (utilitarianism. In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1999) The goal is to maximise utility, and this in turn can generate substantial inequality between the individual members of a community. Utilitarianism is an ethical doctrine that promotes the thought that objective of any act should be to bestow the maximum happiness on the largest number of individuals. It also states that the utility of any object determines its value. This theory has been frequently, applied in health care; and specifically in decisions relating to the deployment of public funds and resources, in order to provide health services (Utilitarianism in Mosbys Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, & Health Professions , 2009). Society is subject to considerable diversity and it entertains a variety of interests, conflicts and dilemmas. There is an undercurrent of common morality in society, which forms the basis for the innumerable pragmatic choices that have to be made in situations that are intricate in the extreme. An instance of common morality is provided by the standards that are to be found in the ethical minded, despite cultural differences; a telling example of this is the prevalence of human rights across different cultures. A very important ethical theory is Utilitarianism, which determines whether an action can be classified as right or wrong, on the basis of the consequences that it produces. List of References AIredale NHS Trust v Bland , 1ALL ER 821 (1993). Dimova-Cookson, M. (2009, April 2). Bentham, Mill and Green on the nature of the good. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/journal/mdc.htm J.S. Mill and G.E. Moore: Utilitarianism. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://philologist.tripod.com/util.html Kemerling, G. (2002, February 21). Utilitarianism. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5q.htm LeBaron, G. (1999). Normative Ethical Theories and Euthanasia. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.quantonics.com/The_Ethics_of_Euthanasia_By_Garn_LeBaron.html#Normative_Ethical_Theories R(On the application of PS) v (1) Responsible Medical Officer , EWHC 2335 (Admin) (2003). Utiliatarianism. (2000). Retrieved April 20, 2010, from The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology: http://www.credoreference.com/entry/bksoc/utilitarianism Utilitarianism in Mosbys Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, & Health Professions . (2009). Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/ehsmosbymed/utilitarianism Utilitarianism. In A Dictionary of Philosophy, Macmillan. (2002). Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/macdphil/utilitarianism Utilitarianism. In Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia. (1996). Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/routpe/utilitarianism utilitarianism. In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. (1999). Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/cupdphil/utilitarianism Read More