Utilitarianism and Individual Rights and Justice - Essay Example

2 March Utilitarianism and Individual Rights and Justice This paper analyzes how the utilitarianism approach will assess the permissibility of torturing the children, and if it can provide an acceptable conclusion. It will first explain some of the main ideas of utilitarianism and then explore how utilitarianism would approach this question. Utilitarianism is based on the “general happiness principle” or the “principle of utility” (PU). Actions are moral if they promote general happiness, and they are wrong if they will reduce general happiness. Among several actions, the right action promotes greater happiness or utility than others. The assumptions of utilitarianism are: 1) Human well-being is a common good; 2) Everyone should be included in the assessment of utility; and 3) The right actions promote what is good for society. The elements of utilitarianism are: 1) concept of happiness, 2) impartiality, 3) consequentialism, and 4) balance of good and bad consequences. Utilitarianism values happiness or utility, which is defined as “pleasure and freedom from pain.” Utilitarianism further places high priority on impartiality, because we should all be impartial to each other’s happiness. Each of us is considered as holding one utility, whatever our social classes and positions, and other defining characteristics maybe. Furthermore, utilitarianism is consequentialist ethics, because the moral values of actions depend on their total consequences. Finally, PU underlines the importance of balancing positive and negative consequences. The loss of utility of others should be justified by the increase in happiness of other people. Utilitarianism prioritizes the PU over subordinate moral values, but Mill argues for the assessment of the quality of our action’s consequences. He emphasizes that the quality of decisions should be more important than the quantity of consequences. Estimates of utility should give greater weight to higher quality pleasures. Higher pleasures pertain to pleasure from activities that exercise the intellect, feelings, imagination, moral sentiments, and other essential moral values. These activities allow for greater choice and responsibility. Lower pleasures refer to pleasures of sensation and are more passive pleasures. Mill also argues that it is important to protect civil rights, because doing so will lead to high social utility. The maxims of justice are additional important subordinate principles of doing the right actions. Utilitarianism assesses actions in terms of their consequences, but it can also evaluate motives and character traits. It is important to assess action versus a person’s motives and character traits. Utilitarianism asserts that good motives and traits are important in making the right actions. Still, it also recognizes that not all right actions are made by virtuous characters. Another principle of utilitarianism is that actions may not directly aim for higher general utility, but can result to it anyway. Self-interested actions, when combined with basic moral rules and common sense can benefit others, such as family, friends, and one’s organization. For instance, a whistleblower might have the motive of revenge. His motive is bad, but because of his expose, he saves other employees from being conned by the company. PU also argues that people can use experience to help them define and compute the consequences of harm and benefit. They should have the knowledge to differentiate between “primary” (fundamental) and “secondary” (subordinate) moral rules. The primary rule is PU, while the subordinate rules are general moral beliefs, such as protection of freedom and property and avoidance of deception and dishonesty. Mill argues that when primary and subordinate moral rules clash, people should apply PU instead. Utilitarianism can be used to provide two assessments of this case. On the one hand, the PU stresses that it is right to torture these children, because the outcome will yield greater utility for more people. It is better to endanger two children than endanger the lives of hundreds or thousands more potential victims of KSM. The end will justify the means, because the end will yield greater happiness than the means. Furthermore, utilitarianism asserts that happiness is impartial. Just because the people who will be tortured are children, their happiness is not larger in value than those of the greater number of people, who will be saved if KSM is forced to reveal his future plans. Every person, even a child, has only one utility. This utility can and should be sacrificed, if it can lead to the common or greater good of all. It is true that torturing children is wrong, by using common sense moral values. Adults have moral duties of protecting these children from being harmed, which is why we have laws that criminalize violence against children. These children have inherent human rights from coercion and torture. However, the primary principle is PU, while the subordinate are general moral beliefs, such as protection of freedoms and rights. Mill argues that when primary and subordinate moral rules clash, people should apply PU instead. In this case, it is right to choose the utility of greater people than the happiness and rights of the children. In addition, the action of torturing the children is right, because the motive and trait of the person deciding on this are good. This person wants to protect other people from being harmed or killed by KSM. He is not torturing these children for his own self-gain, which is a good social motive. Furthermore, the person has the trait of loyalty to his nation and has experience in making the right decisions. These are good traits that exhibit his logic in making the right decisions for the society. On the other hand, utilitarianism argues that it is wrong to torture children. Mill argues that it is important to protect civil rights, because doing so will lead to high social utility. Rights are rules that defend essential human interests. Children have rights against violence and coercion. Considering this, it is wrong to torture them; even if there will be positive consequences. “Maxims of justice” should also be applied, because they benefit society in the long run. If anyone can torture children, this means that justice and rights are no longer inviolable and society will plummet into chaos. Utilitarianism prioritizes the PU over subordinate moral values, but Mill argues for the assessment of the quality of our action’s consequences. Saving children from torture is considered a higher pleasure, because it exercises feelings, moral sentiments, and other essential moral values. If we will torture children, the moral consequences will be astounding. People’s lives will be saved, but everyone will wonder what kind of society we have if we cannot protect the rights and freedoms of our children. These feelings will breed uncertainty and lack of trust in our social institutions, which will harm the general good. In the end, the society will be worse off, upon knowing that children can be easily tortured, however right the consequences may be. Utilitarianism can provide an acceptable conclusion, because Mills defined the parameters of consequentialist ethics. He argues for the quality of decisions through assessing the quality of consequences, because actions should also respect subordinate principles and values. It is suggested that instead of hurting these children, the CIA can resort to threatening KSM that he will never see his children again and they will be assimilated into American culture. I believe that this might be perceived as an equally worse scenario compared to torture, because the children will be part of the Americans. KSM cannot, from now on, easily hurt Americans, because he might also be hurting his own children. The main point is that utilitarianism respects moral values, rights, and justice in making the right decisions, because these are critical to promoting general happiness too. It will be wrong to torture children, because the moral implications will undermine the common good in the long run. Read More