However, in response to Rawls’ objection, it can be argued from the view of Rule Utilitarianism that in a society “..man..cannot be isolated from others..all our actions will affect others in some way” (Mill, 2004:10) and so it’s right that we should adhere to the set of moral rules that is compliant with which produces the greatest overall happiness. (Dr Pekka Vayrynen 2012). In general, people find comfort in the stability and predictability of other’s behavior, which can be fulfilled if people are adhering to certain rules. (Dr Pekka Vayrynen 2012) For example, if we live in a society where “do not lie” or “do not steal” are general rules, that society will benefit from greater happiness if everybody were to follow those rules. If we take the desires of each individual into account, the rules will not be adhered to, and individuals who wish to lie and steal will reduce the general happiness of society. Furthermore, it could also be argued that the rights of the individuals are not taken away completely – the “majority” only consists of a small number of close people. This then questions why an individual would not want to maximize pleasure for this majority, as the happiness produced will consequently affect them. In contrast, I would still argue that my objection is stronger as general rules are not universal and so there is no moral obligation for the individual to act in any particular way.
Another element to ignoring individual rights is that there is no measure of pleasure distribution, and without this, utilitarianism justifies inhuman actions towards individuals for the greater good. One example can be seen in John Harris’ Survival Lottery thought experiment, where a two dying people need organs to survive, both of which can be provided by a healthy man who would be killed. A utilitarian would argue to save the two dying people, showing dismissal of individual rights. Even if were the case that these two people were murderers or thieves, this would be ignored, which makes the theory appear morally disconcerting. By ignoring individual merits and rights, there is no justification for harming an individual for the sake of the greater good. For example, many have been tortured for information on terrorism, although innocent, yet a utilitarian would argue this results in greater consequences for the greatest number of people. As Rachels (2005: Ch.6) said, “Rights are not a utilitarian notion, but a limit on utilitarian thinking” thus reducing violation of individual rights irrespective of consequences. This element is persuasive because it shows utilitarianism falsely trying to justify stripping individuals of their rights to bring about the greatest good.
However, one could argue that in any society, some individual rights must be limited in order to maintain stability. For example, it may be justifiable to imprison an individual if it is thought that society would benefit from the security and stability brought about by knowing they are no longer at risk. (Heard, 1997) Furthermore, in times of instability it is necessary to make decisions that may lead to unhappiness in the present, but greater future consequences. This, arguably, does not limit or ignore individual rights, but puts them aside in times of great need. For example, in times of war it is not uncommon for a new Prime Minister to be appointed, or resources to be reallocated and rationed, both of which undermine rights. (Heard, 1997) However, this still does not reconcile innocent people being imprisoned, and many would argue that Utilitarianism is supposedly striving for greatest net pleasures now, not later.
To conclude, the aforementioned points show how ignoring individual rights can have dire consequences, and how morality cannot be determined solely by the majority. Individuals will not experience the same levels of pleasure from a consequence, so it is morally repellent to argue that few must suffer for many, and that no individual action can be performed if not to maximize overall happiness. Therefore, ignoring the rights of individuals is the strongest objection to utilitarianism as a theory of moral rightness and wrongness.
Bibliography.
Works Cited:
-
Mill, J S. 2002. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co, Inc.
- Dr Pekka Vayrynen. 11/10/12 and 18/10/12. Lecture 3 + 4.
-
Rawls, J. 2005. A Theory of Justice. pp. 23-24. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
-
Mill, J S. 2004. On Liberty. p. 10. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
White, J E. 2005. Contemporary Moral Problems. Ch.6. California: Wadsworth Publishing.
-
Heard, A. 1997. Human rights: Chimeras in Sheep’s Clothing? [online] Available at:< >
-
Mill, J. 2007. Chapter 48: Utilitarianism. FROM: Shafer-Landau, R. Ethical Theory: An Anthology. pp.457-462. Oxford: Blackwell.
Addition Sources:
-
Mackie, J L. 1990. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin Group.
-
Phillipa, F. 1968. Theories of Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Darwell, S L. 2005. A Companion to Applied Ethics. Maldon: Blackwell Publishing.
Word Count: 1059