According to Jeremy Bentham, morality must be judged on its end consequences. Whatever brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number is the moral thing to do.
This consequentialist take on morality poses a major problem. 'Act utilitarianism' potentially allows for a severe infringement of human rights. Take bullying for example: if one child is bullied by five children, then according to a utilitarian principle, this may be justified. The happiness five children gain from bullying may be greater than the misery caused for the one child that is bullied.
Gang rape is another example. Strictly speaking, 'act utilitarianism' would say that gang rape is morally justified if it brings about greater happiness to the gang than the pain caused to the victim.
In response to this criticism, utilitarianism presents a better alternative - 'rule utilitarianism'. This view on morality uses the greatest utility principle but has certain rules that must never be violated. Thus, rule utilitarianism protects fundamental human rights where act utilitarianism does not.
This consequentialist take on morality poses a major problem. 'Act utilitarianism' potentially allows for a severe infringement of human rights. Take bullying for example: if one child is bullied by five children, then according to a utilitarian principle, this may be justified. The happiness five children gain from bullying may be greater than the misery caused for the one child that is bullied.
Gang rape is another example. Strictly speaking, 'act utilitarianism' would say that gang rape is morally justified if it brings about greater happiness to the gang than the pain caused to the victim.
In response to this criticism, utilitarianism presents a better alternative - 'rule utilitarianism'. This view on morality uses the greatest utility principle but has certain rules that must never be violated. Thus, rule utilitarianism protects fundamental human rights where act utilitarianism does not.
No comments:
Post a Comment