The General Principles of Utilitarianism - Assignment Example

The 18th century social life in England was extremely different from that of the current century. English law was more polarized towards the upper class during that period. It was difficult for the poor people to seek the assistance of law and order or criminal justice system because criminal justice system procedure at that time was extremely expensive. English society was divided in to different classes based on the wealth during that period. The social belief at that time was such that people were not created equal; some classes of people in the society had more privileges than the other classes. Jeremy Bentham questioned all these social inequalities with the help of moral theories with respect to utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham was am 18th century British philosopher, sociologist and theorist who was successful in interpreting many of the social issues with the help of his moral theories. Politics, social life, law and order etc were some of the areas in which Bentham contributed heavily to the society. He has contributed immensely to utilitarianism and was successful in explaining how general principles of utilitarianism can be applied to the specific problem of punishment for criminal offences. Bentham held that laws should be socially useful and not merely reflect the status quo. Laws had no sense of order or reason behind them. Bentham believed that pain and pleasure were the instruments that legislators had to work with in controlling antisocial and criminal behavior. This approach to law and order has been termed as utilitarianism because it emphasized the worth an action holds for the individual participating in it1. The major objective behind the punishment of criminals by criminal justice system is to avoid the threat from the criminals to the society. Criminal justice system adopts different strategies to reduce or eliminate the threat of criminals to society. Detention, correction and punishment are some of the ways through which Criminal justice system tries to change the behavior of the criminals. Traditional punishment methods were based on causing some kind of pain to the criminal so that he may change his behavior. Bentham has pointed out that both pain and pleasure are equally important in the correction process of criminals. In his opinion, many criminals engage in criminal activities because of lack of pleasure they were facing in their social life. For example, poverty is one of the major reasons for criminal behaviors according to many sociologists. So, elimination of poverty means elimination of crime. In short, Bentham argued that the essence of punishment should not be causing pain always; in some cases, causing pleasure can bring better results. “Bentham’s utilitarianism requires that social welfare should be based exclusively on individual utilities. It is not, however, obvious in Bentham’s texts whether individual actions should be justified at the individual level, or by the utility principle at the collective level”2. Utilitarianism believes that the utility or the outcome of an action should be considered while labeling an action as moral or immoral. If an action brings better things to more people, it can be justified under moral principles of utilitarianism. However, Bentham argued that an action can be justified if it brings good to the individual rather than the society. In other words, Bentham puts individual interests higher than the interests of the society. In his opinion, since individuals are the members of a society, safeguarding the interests of individuals may automatically result in safeguarding the interests of the society. The ‘principle of utility’, which Bentham also terms the ‘greatest happiness principle’ or ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’ is the fundamental utilitarian principle: it defines the social objective, and provides the basic principle of action for judges, legislators, governors, and private moral agents. The interest of the community is nothing but ‘the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it’. According to Bentham, the social objective – the utilitarian ethical principle – is to reach the greatest happiness. A utilitarian society requires instruments that will direct individuals to realize through their own actions the greatest happiness of the community. Implementing an appropriate system of rewards and punishments is likely to guide individual actors, who are motivated by their own self-interest, towards the greatest happiness3. Many people have the illusion that only rewards can help a person to feel happiness. It should be noted that the happiness generated out of rewards may not be permanent. For example, suppose a person was successful in getting a promotion. At the time of announcement of promotions by the manager, he may feel extreme happiness. However, it is quite possible that the person may develop unhappiness over a period of time because of the over workload he received through promotion. In short, rewards can sometimes bring only temporary promotion. On the other hand, punishments can bring permanent happiness even though it brings temporary unhappiness. For example, suppose a person was sentenced for a severe crime. After few years of jail terms, he may realize his mistake and change his behavior. In such cases, he may develop permanent happiness because of his success in changing his antisocial behavior. It should be noted that the society may also get immense benefit when a criminal changes his behavior. In fact a society is forced to punish a criminal in order to save the interests of others. It should be noted that the interest of a society is nothing but the collective sum total of the interests of the individuals. “In the works of Bentham, we encounter a systematic utilitarian justification that the suffering of the criminal is justified because it contributes to the security of society; the welfare or happiness of others outweighs the pain to the person punished”4. The moral principles with respect to punishment of Bentham and Immanuel Kant are differing in the above point. Bentham’s moral theories argue that the concept of punishment can be justified only when it safeguards the interests of the society whereas Immanuel Kant argued that punishment is nothing but revenge which is unacceptable. “The followers of Kant's retributivism hold that punishment needs no social justification: It is a response to the imperative to do justice”5. Utilitarianism stresses the importance of social happiness whereas Kantianism argues for individual happiness. In other words, it is difficult for utilitarianism and Kantianism to travel in one direction always, since individual interests may not be always in line with the social interests. For example, suppose a poor person steals some money from a rich person. Kantianism may justify that action since the poor person may get more happiness as a result of the stolen money. On the other hand, utilitarianism can never justify that action since the social interest is against such actions. Bentham has pointed out that the major objective behind punishment is deterrence rather than revenge even though Kant labeled punishment as a form of revenge. It should be noted that torture is part of any punishment. However, “Bentham insisted that torture should not be viewed independently of the purposes for which it is used”6. Bentham has pointed out that Kantians are wrong in describing punishment as a form of revenge. He has pointed out that torture should not be considered independently while analyzing punishment. For example, the execution of former Iraqi president Saddam, the killing of Libyan leader Gadhafi and the killing of Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden have generated lot of sympathy in the minds of many people. The brutal killing of Libyan leader Gadhafi was telecasted by many television channels. It is a fact that these incidents generated sympathy in the minds of many people. However, it should be noted that these people were responsible for killing thousands of innocent people. If somebody refer the killing of these infamous people in terms of revenge, they may not be correct. According to the views of Bentham, these punishments or killings can be justified since it saved the lives of millions of people. With respect to a given individual, the recurrence of an offense may be provided against in three ways: By taking from him the physical power of offending; By taking away the desire of offending and By making him afraid of offending. In the first case, the individual can no more commit the offense; in the second, he no longer desires to commit it; in the third, he may still wish to commit it, but he no longer dares to do it. In the first case, there is a physical incapacity; in the second, a moral reformation; in the third, there is intimidation or terror of the law. General prevention is effected by the denunciation of punishment, and by its application, which, according to the common expression, serves for an example. The punishment suffered by the offender presents to everyone an example of what he himself will have to suffer if he is guilty of the same offense. General prevention ought to be the chief end of punishment, as it is its real justification7. According to Bentham, there is no point in punishing a criminal if is physically incapable of repeating his mistake in future. There are many cases in which the criminals may suffer physical injuries while trying to commit crimes. Suppose a terrorist lost his hands and legs while trying to conduct a bomb explosion to kill innocent people. In that case, there is no point in keeping that person in jail for longer periods as he is no more capable of repeating the crime. Same way suppose the authorities were convinced that a criminal has changed his behavior as a result of the punishment. There is no point in keeping him in jails if the authorities have 100% surety about the character change of the criminal. However, it is difficult to think that Osama like hardcore criminals may change their behavior even if they were kept in the prisons for hundreds of years. In such cases, criminal justice system has only the option of keeping the criminal in jail during his entire life term or provides capital punishment to him in order to avoid threats to the lives of innocent people in future. Bentham also stressed the importance of fear generated by the punishment in the minds of others. In his opinion, punishment of a criminal has two objectives; rectify the mistakes of the criminal and generate the fear among other people about the penalties or punishments associated with crime. If Osama like criminals were succeeded in escaping from punishments, people in the society may get a wrong message that it is easy to escape from punishments even after committing serious crimes. On the other hand, capitals punishments will remind the people that their life will be lost if they commit serious crimes. To conclude, Jeremy Bentham succeeded in explaining punishments in terms of utilitarianism. In his opinion, punishment can be justified since it forces people to stay away from criminal activities along with forcing the criminal to change his behavior. In his opinion, the interests of the society are more important than the interests of the individuals. Sacrificing the interests of the society for safeguarding the interests of an individual cannot be justified under any circumstances. Bibliography Bentham J. ‘The Rationale of Punishment’. [Accessed on 20 January 2012]. Baujard A. ‘Collective interest versus individual interest in Bentham’s felicific calculus. Questioning welfarism and fairness’. Euro. J. History of Economic Thought 17:4 607–634 October 2010. Baujard A. ‘A return to Bentham’s felicific calculus: From moral welfarism to technical non-welfarism’. Euro. J. History of Economic Thought 16:3 431–453 September 2009 Fletcher G.P. ‘Punishment and human rights’. World & I, Nov93, Vol. 8 Issue 11, p412 EBSCOHost Lenta P. ‘The Purposes of Torture’. South African Journal of Philosophy Date: February 1, 2006 Swanson K. Jeremy Bentham. . [Accessed on 20 January 2012]. Read More