Utilitarianism was long thought to violate the Principle of Retributive Justice, the concept of being punished for crimes committed. Under closer examination, it is revealed that Utilitarianism and Retributive Justice do not clash. According to Mill, the concept of justice is actually derived from utility. When an individual's moral rights are violated, it is a natural tendency to want to retaliate against the violator. The retaliation ensures that such an act would not happen again. By protecting individuals from the violation of rights, punishment contributes to an overall increase of utility in society. In Utilitarianism, Mill writes that "a person may possibly not need the benefits of others, but he always needs that they should not do him hurt" (Mill 89). This protection allows individuals to follow their own pursuits more effectively, without fear, and ultimately with more utility. At the same time, Mill also argues that certain cases exist where an individual has a moral duty to do an action that would be considered unjust under normal circumstances; however, due to the action drastically increasing utility, the action is allowed to be done and does not violate the Principle of Retributive Justice. An act that would be considered "wrong" in a normal situation can be "right" in other situations. One such example is the case of Robin Hood. Robin Hood is a fictional character who steals material goods and money from very rich individuals and redistributes those items to the very poor. He is not punished for his crimes, and is hailed as a hero for his deeds. While the case of Robin Hood might seem to violate the Principle of Retributive Justice because he receives no retribution for his actions, under closer consideration, this...
... middle of paper ...
...itarianism applies to acts that are determined to be morally right based on an individual's internal motivations rather than based on the actual act itself as the opponents previously argued. Acts that are morally right are do not violate the Principle of Retributive Justice and therefore, do not deserve punishment. For instance, Robin Hood is not motivated by greed or corruption but is instead motivated by compassion. Wishing a more equal distribution of wealth, Robin Hood helps the most vulnerable people in society. He does not keep the wealth himself, but rather, gives it away. It is his internal goodness and unselfishness that prevents him from violating the Principle of Retributive Justice. He does not deserve punishment, as his motivations were not immoral. Utilitarianism inspires Robin Hood as he strives to create a better world and a more prosperous society.
Utilitarianism is a movement in ethics which began in the late eighteenth centaury and is primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and was later adapted and fully developed by John Stuart Mill in the ninetieth century. . The theory states that we should try to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is defined as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of it consequences: specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible
Since we are made as free moral agents with the ability to choose the standards by which we will live some in society determine their right and wrong behavior based on their feelings of particular situations. For example, a person who grew up in a culture that is less fortunate than others and steals for survival might feel he hasn’t done anything wrong. However, this type of behavior is not acceptable in our society because it violates our obligation to be obedient to the law, not to mention the disadvantage of consequences one faces for their decisions. The advantage to displaying moral character by far out weights the consequences in that choosing to do right creates fairness by way of harmony. Of course, justice requires that victims are compensated for the wrong done to them, and anyone committs a crime must bear the ...
Consequentialism is a punishment theory that provides moral justification for punishment by taking into account future consequences and by weighing the intrinsic value of a punishment against other available alternatives. The primary rationale for punishment is to bring the most good over harm, to deter or prevent crimes from occurring in the first place and to prevent future crimes from being committed. Utilitarianism would even consider punishing the innocent or pass a more severe sentence for a lesser crime if it could be determined that benefits to society outweighed the consequences of such punishment (Howard). For example, if it were believed that better crime deterrence or prevention could be achieved, a consequentialist would consider executing a murderer versus handing down a life sentence. Retributivism is a punishment theory that looks back at the specific nature of a crime and determines how much the victim suffered, in order to morally justify the severity of punishment. The moral emphasis is on righting a wrong and seeking justice by ensuring that criminals get what the...
...g on someone’s or some group’s rights. So if a few must suffer in order for the needs of the many it can prove very bad because of the moral obligation involving rights in this case are severe. Finally in my reason of finding this theory unattractive, is the fact that utilitarianism seems to view people as vessels of pleasure and pain rather than as people.
In utilitarianism priority of justice is possible in view of the priority of its bases. Justice is more than just one of the values, because its principles are derived independently of the other values. Unlike other practical principles, the moral law is not intended to advance any random interests and goals. Justice in utilitarianism does not include any ideas about welfare. Since the idea of justice precedes all purely empirical purposes, justice has a position in relation to the welfare and sets its limits.
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
307). Subsequently, he denies the possibility that the sovereign could maintain his natural right without the consent of his subjects. In this situation, every act of punishment would constitute a return to the state of nature. Ultimately, Norrie concludes that Hobbes’s attempt to rectify this contradiction is inadequate. Subsequently, the author proceeds to compare Hobbes’s punishment theory to modern retributivist and utilitarian theories. In terms of its retributivist elements, the social contract serves as an individual qualification for punishment because the individual enters into an agreement directed by their own reason. In other words, the subject “establishes a law for himself, and his punishment for crime is his ‘own act’ returning to him” (pg. 314). Hobbes punishment theory also contains clear utilitarian elements as well. For example, the purpose of punishment is that “the will of men may thereby the better be disposed to obedience” and maintains the “possibility of disposing the Delinquent, or (by his example) other men, to obey the Laws…”
would reject even the notion of deliberating about the act of murder in such a
Justice is controlled differently all throughout the world. Similarly, justice means a different thing to different people. Though not always enforced, my definition of what is just most likely differs from the person next to me. However, there are some actions that are generally accepted as being unjust. To give one example from the reading it is controversial whether “laws” are capable of determining what is just & what is unjust. It can be agreed by most that there are some laws are unjust but it is controversial among people whether these unjust laws can justly be disobeyed. Is disobeying a law always unjust regardless of the absurdity of the particular law?
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.
Utilitarianism is a reality, not just a theory like many other philosophies; it is practiced every day, for instance the vote system. This ongoing practice of utilitarianism in society has show that it is flawed. Just because the masses vote for something, doesn’t make it right. The masses can be fooled, as in Nazi Germany for example, thousands of people were behind Hitler even though his actions were undeniably evil. Utilitarianism is a logical system, but it requires some sort of basic, firm rules to prevent such gross injustices, violations of human rights, and just obviously wrong thing ever being allowed. This could be the ‘harm principle’ which Mill devised.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
“Restorative justice is an approach to crime and other wrongdoings that focuses on repairing harm and encouraging responsibility and involvement of the parties impacted by the wrong.” This quote comes from a leading restorative justice scholar named Howard Zehr. The process of restorative justice necessitates a shift in responsibility for addressing crime. In a restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take an active role in addressing that crime. Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. Restorative justice is a very broad subject and has many other topics inside of it. The main goal of the restorative justice system is to focus on the needs of the victims, the offenders, and the community, and focus
in Rachels 65). So, we should have no considerations for the people who would be affected by our actions other than our selves. A commonsensical person can see how this could lead to several negative consequences and moral injustice. Take for example, a rapist who seeks sexual pleasure by forcefully acquiring it from his victims or the Joker who causes terror for the pleasure of watching the world burn (The Dark Knight). To the ethical egoist, since these actions are selfishly done for one’s own benefit, they are morally justified. This is irrational due to the idea that what separates us, human beings, from all the animals, or at least the noncomplex species, is that we usually care for our fellow peers in society and that we can reason based on that care. Any rational person would judge these actions as wrong since not giving value to this is almost as leveling humans with the animals of nature. Unlike ethical egoism, utilitarianism does count others in the equation of morality. Instead of acting selfishly, a utilitarian requires us to act “as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.” (qtd. in Mill, Utilitarianism.). There’s no superiority to one’s selfish desires simply because they are themselves. To the utilitarian,