Punishment And Utilitarianism

1449 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Punishment in modern societies

Legal punishment is, and has been for centuries, a particularly difficult topic within both politics and philosophy; many philosophers have tried to justify it regarding the role of the state in deciding punishment, what punishment entails, and the repercussions on the agent committing an “illegal” act considered worth punishment. Concerning the nature of legal punishment, there are countless issues that must be dealt with prior to establishing a sound argument for anyone allowing punishment to occur, let alone how or why the state is the agency allowed to dictate the rules of punishment. In this sense, criminal punishment/ coercive force is the response to crime, and the punishment is through an individual’s suffering (either emotional or physical pain)1. As with most sections of philosophical reasoning, the two most common approaches used to understand the nature, acceptance, and subjectivity of …show more content…

However, using utilitarianism to justify legal punishment does not negate Bentham’s understanding that causing another human anguish in any way is still inherently evil. Yet, he would argue that this evil is still ultimately better, and justified, if it allows the greatest happiness in the future of either the offender or the state 6. Understanding the promotion of the greatest good as the ultimate motivator behind coercive actions by the state allows one to be able to dictate when these punishments are viable. Bentham would argue that punishment is not always necessary when a crime is committed, such as when the accusations are groundless or needless, it cannot prevent the action now or in the future, or if it is not profitable. We will later see the large disparity in this approach when compared to retributivism, as Bentham implies that not all crimes, according to utilitarianism, are worthy of punishment

Show More
Related

  • The Atrocity of Saul Alinsky's Utilitarian Approach to Communcation

    532 Words  | 2 Pages

    Jeremy Bentham, one of the founders of Utilitarianism, believed his philosophy could provide for the “greatest happiness of the greatest number of people”. However benign it may sound, at the heart of Utilitarianism is a cold, teleological process which reduces happiness to a mere commodity. It is even worse that Saul Alinsky would extend this philosophy to a point where the truth becomes relative, justice becomes a tool of those powerful enough to wield it, and any means are justified to reach one’s desired ends.

    Read More

  • Penitionism In David Boonin's The Problem Of Punishment

    1589 Words  | 4 Pages

    Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view

    Read More

  • Herbert Morris's Theory Of Punishment

    1614 Words  | 4 Pages

    Herbert Morris and Jean Hampton both view punishment as important to a healthy society. However, their views on what kind of role does punishment plays in a healthy society are vastly different. Morris believes that when one commits a crime they “owe a debt to the society and the person they wronged” and, therefore the punishment of that person is retributive, and a right for those who committed this wrong (270). Hampton, on the other hand, believes that punishment is a good for those who have strayed in the path of being morally right. Out of the two views presented, I believe that Hampton view is more plausible, and rightly places punishment as a constructive good that is better suited for society than Morris’s view.

    Read More

  • The Theories Of Contractualism And Untractionalist Ethics By Thomas Hobbes

    840 Words  | 2 Pages

    Utilitarianism is consequentialist ethical system that focuses on the results of actions, rather than the actions themselves. Utilitarian ethics, attributed to Jeremy Bentham, also argue that humans are naturally driven to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Therefore, in utilitarian ethics, just actions are those that maximize happiness, utility, and minimize unhappiness. Utilitarian ethics also argue that happiness must be maximized for the greatest number of people, rather than focusing on the individual pursuit of pleasure. Utilitarianisms strengths lie in its societal applications, allowing decision making bodies that benefit large groups, rather than looking purely individualistically. It also offers a stronger justification if one accepts the base principle that happiness is universally better than unhappiness. One of the main difficulties in applying utilitarian ethics is the challenge of quantifying happiness. It is impossible to empirically measure happiness. Utilitarianism also opens itself to hypotheticals that yield unpleasant results. Under pure utilitarianism, if it would increase the safety, and therefore happiness, of a society to torture or kill innocents suspected of a crime, it would follow that such action was ethically just. Subsequent utilitarians have offered more nuanced versions of the hedonic calculus and ideas of rule utilitarianism that look at overall moral rules

    Read More

  • Ethical Issues In The Death Penalty

    1624 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Death Penalty practice has always been a topic of major debate and ethical concern among citizens in society. The death penalty can be defined as the authorization to legally kill a person as punishment for committing a crime, this practice is also known as Capital Punishment. The purpose of creating a harsher punishment for criminals was to deter other people from committing atrocious crimes and it was also intended to serve as a way of incapacitation and retribution. In fact, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are some of the basic concepts in the justice system, which explain the intentions of creating punishments as a consequence for illegal conduct. In the United States, the Congress approved the federal death penalty on June 25, 1790 and according to the Death Penalty Focus (DPF, 2011) organization website “there have been 343 executions, two of which were women”.

    Read More

  • Restorative Justice Vs Retributive Justice

    665 Words  | 2 Pages

    He argues that the only punishment possibly equivalent to death, the amount of inflicted harm, is death. Death is qualitatively different from any kind of life, so no substitute could be found that would equal death(6). The down side of the retributive system of just can be observed in our modern practices of zero tolerance laws. These laws have placed values of some wrongdoings so high that punishment for relatively minor offenses can see an offender detained for substantially longer than arguably needed to repay the harm they caused. Placing a grater demand on our prison facilities and creates a circle of offense and

    Read More

  • Hobbes Punishment Theory

    1387 Words  | 3 Pages

    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…”

    Read More

  • Dead Man Walking: Death Penalty in America

    1410 Words  | 3 Pages

    Capital punishment, otherwise known as “The Death Penalty,” has been around for many years and has been the cause of death for over twelve hundred inmates since 1976 (“Death Penalty Information Center”), but is the Death Penalty really beneficial to the American public? This question is in the back of many people’s minds, and has left many questioning the meaning of the punishment. The death penalty targets murderers or high profile cases. Some say that the death penalty should apply to those who murder, rape, or abuse human beings such as children, or women. The significance of the penalty is to teach these criminals that there are laws that must be followed. In a figurative sense, it is to teach those potential wrongdoers a lesson. By examining the facts around us, we can gain a greater sense of security, and a greater understanding of what the death penalty can accomplish, all while assessing the high-quality aspects that the penalty has to offer.

    Read More

  • Essay On Capital Punishment

    822 Words  | 2 Pages

    Defenders of capital punishment can be separated into two categories. Some are retributivists and follow Immanuel Kant’s theory of retribution. Other defenders are consequentialist and follow John Stewart Mill’s consequentialist approach. Both philosophers unambiguously address the dispute of capital punishment as a moral responsibility in their ethical theories...

    Read More

  • The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

    1942 Words  | 4 Pages

    This essay will discuss the various views regarding the death penalty and its current status in the United States. It can be said that almost all of us are familiar with the saying “An eye for an eye” and for most people that is how the death penalty is viewed. In most people’s eyes, if a person is convicted without a doubt of murdering someone, it is believed that he/she should pay for that crime with their own life. However, there are some people who believe that enforcing the death penalty makes society look just as guilty as the convicted. Still, the death penalty diminishes the possibility of a convicted murderer to achieve the freedom needed to commit a crime again; it can also be seen as a violation of the convicted person’s rights going against the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham : Father of Utilitarianism

    1451 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jeremy Bentham is widely regarded as the father of utilitarianism. He was born in 1748 into a family of lawyers and was himself, training to join the profession. During this process however, he became disillusioned by the state British law was in and set out to reform the system into a perfect one based on the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle,’ ‘the idea that pleasurable consequences are what qualify an action as being morally good’. Bentham observed that we are all governed by pain and pleasure; we all naturally aim to seek pleasure and avoid pain. He then decided that the best moral principle for governing our lives is one which uses this, the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle.’ This is that the amount of overall happiness or unhappiness that is caused by an action should determine whether an action is right or wrong. He stated,

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism

    1702 Words  | 4 Pages

    Bentham’s Utilitarianism sees the highest good as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham believed that by adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each possible act we should be able to choose the good thing to do. Happiness equaled pleasure minus pain. Bentham provided a way of measuring pleasure and pain, he called it the hedonic calculus. There are seven criteria to this calculus. First being the intensity being measured – how strong is the pleasure. The second criteria, duration – how long will the pleasure last. The third, certainty – how likely or unlikely is the pleasure. Fourth, Propinquity - How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain. The fifth, fecundity – what is the likely hood that a succession of pleasure will follow. The sixth criteria, purity – What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pain. Lastly, is the extent – how many people will be affected. This calculus gave Bentham a method of testing whether an action is morally right in that if it was good it would result in the most pleasurable outcome, having weighed up all the elements. These factors weigh up the potential amount of pleasure or pain which might arise from moral actions to decide which would be the best option to take. Ideally this formula should determine which act has the best tendency and is therefore

    Read More

  • Justifications for Punishment in Modern Society

    1614 Words  | 4 Pages

    Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.

    Read More

  • Does The Punishment Fit The Crime?

    864 Words  | 2 Pages

    Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.

    Read More

  • The Death Penalty Debate

    1625 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately represent both sides of the argument. Proponents of capital punishment persuasively argue that a “central principle of a just society is that every person has an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Cauthen, p 1). Within this principle, the deliberate (premeditated) murder of an individual is viewed as a heinous act, which prevents the person from realizing his or her right to pursue happiness. They strongly feel that persons convicted of first-degree murder must, themselves, pay the ultimate price. They claim that the death penalty must be imposed in order to maintain the moral standards of the community. Proponents of capital punishment are people who oppose the death penalty are fearful that innocent people may be wrongfully executed. They insist, however, that numerous “safeguards” are built into the criminal justice system which insures the protection of those facing capital punishment. Among the safeguards are: 1. Capital punishment may be imposed only for a crime for which the death penalty is prescribe by law at the time of its commission. 2. Persons below eighteen years of age, pregnant women, new mothers or persons who have become insane shall not be sentenced to death. 3. Capital punishment may be imposed only when guilt is determined by clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts. 4. Capital punishment may be carried out only after a final judgment rendered by a competent court allowing all possible safeguards to the defendant, including adequate legal assistance. 5. Anyone sentenced to death shall receive the right to appeal to a court of higher j...

    Read More

More about Punishment And Utilitarianism

Open Document