How and Why Homicide Could Be Justifiable - Essay Example

Utilitarianism: How and Why Homicide could be Justifiable? Utilitarianism: How and Why Homicide could be Justifiable? Introduction Utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy or philosophical theory of morality or a simple moral belief that gives prime importance to the happiness of the most number of people in the society. Under this theory of normative ethics, actions those maximize happiness and reduce suffering are justified. It is identified that the Utilitarian views are entirely different from its contemporary philosophical theories of morality. Under certain circumstances, even homicide is justifiable under Utilitarianism. This paper will discuss in what kinds of circumstances a Utilitarian would conclude that homicide was the “right thing to do”. The paper will also give some examples to illustrate the situation. An Overview of the Utilitarian Approach As mentioned above, maximum happiness and minimum suffering are the two central concepts of the Utilitarian approach. In other words, the Utilitarian view supports any course of action that would maximize the over wellbeing of the society, or the greatest number of people. According this philosophical theory, happiness of people has to be sacrificed only if such an act would bring greater happiness to more number of people. Stuart Mill, one of the major contributors to the theory of Utilitarianism, gives a clear-cut definition of Utilitarianism. According to him, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (as cited in Bykvist, 2010, p.21). As per the Utilitarian view, an action that would give happiness to greatest number of people is supportable even if it may physically or mentally harm some other people but fewer in numbers. One of the major criticisms against the Utilitarianism is that this philosophical theory fails to define what will maximize happiness. Opponents claim that the notion of happiness may vary from person to person in accordance with their moral beliefs. In the words of Taranovsky (2003), another central concept of this moral theory is that one person’s happiness should never be more important than that of others and there is no good reason to follow a rule of conduct which is detrimental to the happiness of the majority of people. Under this concept, many fundamental laws of conduct and practices of justice are not supportable as they are not likely to make greatest number of people happy. Utilitarian View of Homicide Often, the most criticized aspect of Utilitarianism is that this ethical philosophy supports homicide under certain circumstances. According to Utilitarian approach, even homicide is justifiable if it contributes to the happiness or overall wellbeing of the society. From the view point of Taranovsky (2003), the wellbeing of a murderer is as important as the wellbeing of the President of the United States. More precisely, the act of homicide is justifiable if the murderer obtained more happiness from the homicide than what the victim would have experienced from being alive. Although the Utilitarian approach supports the victim’s right to live, it gives first priority to the degree of happiness and the number of people derived happiness from that particular act. This approach indirectly supports the view that if greatest number of people in a society is against an individual’s right to live, then the individual should not be alive anymore. Therefore, the Utilitarian approach gives particular focus to the overall wellbeing of the society rather than an individual’s fundamental rights. It is very important to note that the theory of Utilitarianism has two forms including act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. The act utilitarianism strongly suggests that actions like murder that most of the people would consider as immoral are morally accepted if they are expected to produce more happiness or balance (Act Utilitarianism). In contrast to this, the rule utilitarianism theory evaluates actions like murder to determine whether these types of actions produce the greatest level of happiness (Rule Utilitarianism). The Utilitarian philosophy used the same principle to take decision on death penalty. If the death penalty of a convict is in the best interests of majority of the general public, then the convict will be hanged certainly. Utilitarians hold the view that if Hitler had been murdered before he took the lives of millions of people, then the act would have been justifiable. It is clear that an early murder of Hitler would have saved the lives of many millions. Hence, such an act would have given happiness to the greatest number of people and thereby it would have been justified under the Utilitarian point of view. The following sessions describe two situations where homicide could be justifiable according to the Utilitarian approach. Situation 1 In the words of Pollock (2011, p. 29), during the time of the World War II, the bombing of the Coventry and thereby the killing of several hundreds of English people could be justifiable as per the Utilitarian point of view. Winston Churchill allowed the bombing of the Coventry in order to prevent Germans from knowing that the Allies had hacked the secret military radio code of Germans. Hence, Churchill did not warn the Coventry residents about this pre-planned bombing raid by Germans. Possibly, an early warning might have saved many of the Coventry residents who have been killed in the German attack. However, as Pollock (2011) states, Churchill’s move was calculated to achieve greater long term gains by suffering a relatively low level loss in the short term (p.29). Churchill thought that the bombing raid of Coventry by Germans would bring an immediate end to the war. In other words, he held the view that if he had warned the people about the Coventry attack, the Germans would have realized the fact that their secret radio code was cracked. Such a situation might persuade Germans to execute a series of more well planned and intense attacks in England and which in turn would have resulted in more number of fatalities. In short, Winston Churchill allowed the deaths of several hundreds of English people so as to provide several thousands of people with greatest happiness and gains in the long term. According to the Utilitarian view, since Churchill’s action was to promote overall wellbeing of the country, it could be justifiable even the action caused the murder of many English people. Situation 2 Imagine a critical care scenario where a doctor has five patients and all of them will die unless they are given immediate organ transplant (cited in ‘Utilitarianism, Kantian Ehtics’, n.d.). Among them, one patient needs a heart transplant, two patients need new kidneys, and the rest two patients need new lungs. At that time, a perfectly healthy person reaches the hospital for routine check-up. By sheer coincidence, he was appeared to be the perfect donor for all the five patients who are fighting for their lives. According to the Utilitarian approach, the doctor should kill that healthy person and distribute his organs to the five patients (as cited in ‘Utilitarianism, Kantian Ehtics’, n.d.). Even though this action will involve the homicide of the healthy person, it would give happiness to the greatest number of people including friends and relatives of the five patients. If the doctor let all the five patients to die and the healthy person to live, the action will be justifiable under the theory of ethical formalism but will not be in line with the Utilitarian view. Conclusion From the above discussion, it is clear that homicide is justifiable under certain circumstances where the act of homicide gives happiness to the greatest number of people. Here, what is good is determined on the basis of consequences of each action in the future. In short, if a homicide would safeguard the interests of majority of people, then the action is justifiable even if the victim is innocent. References Bykvist, K. (2010). Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed. NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. Pollock, J. M. (2011). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. US: Cengage Learning. Rule Utilitarianism & Act Utilitarianism. Retrieved from http://www.lawandbioethics.com/demo/Main/EthicsResources/ruleutilitarianism.htm#AU Taranovsky, D. (2003). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/dmytro/www/Utilitarianism.htm Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, natural rights theories, and religious ethics. Retrieved from web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/321web/321ethicstheory.pdf Read More