why utilitarianism has difficulty accommodating the concept of justice

why utilitarianism has difficulty accommodating the concept of justice

Consequentialist theories of morality are found to be teleological as their purpose is at given goal state ad also assess the actions of morality based on the progress towards the given state. Utilitarianism is one of the commonly known versions of consequentialism. Utilitarianism theory explains the concept of morality based on the maximization, especially on the net expectable utility for the entire parties that are impacted by the particular action or decision. The utilitarianism theory is mostly linked to John Stuart Mill, who created the theory from a plain hedonistic version that was suggested by Jeremy Bentham, his mentor. Actions are taken into consideration as good to the extent that they tend to encourage the significantly greatest good, especially for the greatest number. Both men proposed that the concept of “the greatest number” involved all individuals impacted by the particular action. The theory of utilitarianism is considered simple, with outcomes that are easy to use. The theory offers some extent of right and wrong and that in every situation, the choice between actions is well explained as it advocates for choosing that which offers the greatest utility.

In this paper, it is argued that the utilitarianism theory has difficulty in accommodating the concept of justice. This is demonstrated through how and why unjust statements or scapegoating of some individuals, including the voiceless and weak for the sake of general happiness, is possible with the utilitarianism theory. It will be assumed that the classical conception of justice as meaning giving each person his or her due. The paper will also examine the problem of justice in utilitarianism approaches to euthanasia, distributive justice, and abortion.

why utilitarianism has difficulty accommodating the concept of justice

the repercussions of the actions we take are essential because they matter a lot. Although if the theory of utilitarianism is right, then repercussions are all that matters. The principle of utility is the primary principle of the theory of utilitarianism. The principle notes that the right to a given action is considered the one that generates the significantly most overall happiness. According to John Stuart Mill, happiness is considered a pleasure and a lack of pain. He went ahead to state that there exist lower and higher pleasures. The higher pleasures are categorized as the pleasures involving the intellect individuals, whereas the lower pleasures involve those of the senses. The utilitarian theory does not only focus on the quantity of pleasure, but also quality.

The application of the utilitarianism theory can be said as a positive approach in that it might make us more unselfish and may significantly lead to the alleviation of the majority of the issues we encounter in life. This is because, based on this perspective, the life of all people is seen as the same. Discrimination and prejudice will not happen as every person counts the same during the computation of happiness that is generated by our actions.

Nevertheless, there are multiple weaknesses identified in the utilitarianism theory. The primary weakness associated with the theory involves the concept of justice. The standard objection, in this case, includes that we could be compelled to violate the justice standards. For instance, in the Roe v. Wade legal case where the United States Supreme court in the year 1973 ruled that in the event of unduly restrictive state regulation regarding abortion was considered unconstitutional. Justice Harry A. Blackmun used the majority opinion where the court ruled that a set of Texas statutes that criminalize the act of abortion often practiced violation of the constitutional right of privacy of a woman. The court disagreed with the assertion presented by Roe concerning an absolute right to abortion in any given way and also at any time. The ruling tried balancing the privacy interest of a woman with the interest of the state in regulating the termination of pregnancy. Blackmun suggested in his opinion that only a compelling state interest could justify regulations that limit necessary rights, including privacy. Therefore, legislators ought to draw regulations narrowly to express entirely the legitimate interest of the state that are at stake.

As the judge, you understand that if you rule against abortion, the society will be at peace. In the case you allow abortion to take place, this will cause unrest in the society, where more harm will come to the society as well as its people. Utilitarianism appears to discourage abortion action in certain conditions.

It is, however, wrong to restrict abortion as it violates the rights of a pregnant woman. It is unjust. The utilitarianism only focuses on attaining happiness as where the majority realize happiness; it can amount to the violation of an individual’s rights in service of the other people. The utilitarianism theory requires that individuals commit actions considered unjust in given circumstances. Consequently, the theory is perceived as fundamentally flawed. Regardless of the positive repercussions that can potentially ensue, some things must not be done.

How and why the unjust treatment or scapegoating of some people (especially the weak and voiceless) for the sake of the general happiness is in principle possible with this ethical theory.

scapegoat

the scapegoat objection of utilitarianism suggests that the theory can potentially justify any given horrific act where sufficient individuals endorse the act. If the majority support abortion, the rights of the pregnant woman can be violated. Utilitarianism supports the majority happiness, and it considers it the ethical act regardless of how horrific it might look.

The conception of justice.

Justice is broadly contextualized as involving both the achievement of what is perceived as just as well as the philosophical discussion of that which is considered just. The justice concept is depended on various fields and numerous varying perspectives and points of view, such as moral correctness in terms of rationality, ethics, law, equity, religion, and fairness. Culture also affects the justice concept as it is found to differ from one culture to the next.

Active and Passive Euthanasia by James Rachels

Active euthanasia is usually preferred over passive euthanasia as it cuts down suffering. Rachel maintained that saving the overall defective newborns or the destruction of particular defective newborns if they have congenital defects or Down’s syndrome, although he does not advocate for allowing the death of such newborns slowly and painfully. Killing is deemed worse than letting the newborn die normally bad people will kill while physicians only let die. In passive euthanasia, the physician is perceived to have done nothing, and it is due to the disease that an individual dies. Considering the active euthanasia, the physician is said to do something in killing the patient. Nevertheless, Rachel backs the active euthanasia as he maintains that physicians normally do something in the event they allow individuals to die. The act is letting people die, and it is considered a type of action. He further explains that it is bad to cause the death of an individual as death is considered bad for the people. Although where death has been perceived preferable, then causing death to an individual is not bad any longer.

What Libertarianism is by John Hospers

John Hospers defines as well as defends the libertarian viewpoint. He states that libertarianism includes the doctrine in which by right, all persons are the master of their own life. It maintains that we possess the right to living based on our choices and how we choose to live. This happens as long as we do not do so by infringing on the rights of other people to live as they also choose to live. Particularly, we possess rights to liberty, life, and property, and all these rights usually serve as a no trespassing sign, especially against interference by administrations and from other people. The government is expected to protect the above rights. The concept of libertarianism notes that it is the doctrine in which individuals owns their life and that there is no other person to own the life of anyone. Therefore, every human being is entitled the right to act in line with their specific choices, except when the rights are established as infringing the equal liberty rights of other people.

principle of double effect

the double effect doctrine notes that if doing something that is considered morally good will lead to a moral bad side effect, it is perceived ethically ok to perform it provided that the presenting bad side-effect was not intended. This is considered true even when you can foresee the probability of the bad impact happening. The double effect principle is applied when justifying the situation where a doctor gives patients certain drugs to attain relive of some distressing symptoms, but he understands that doing so would potentially shorten the life of the patient. This is because the doctor’s aim is not to kill the patient directly. The bad outcome of the death of the patient forms the side effect of the anticipated good outcome of scaling down the pain experienced by the patient.  The majority of doctors will make use of the double effect doctrine in justifying the application of high drugs primarily for relieving the suffering, particularly for terminally ill patients, although they understand the drugs may cause the death of the patient.

In the case of abortion, a doctor who holds the belief that abortion act is ever morally wrong is likely to extract the fallopian, or uterus of a pregnant woman, understanding the mechanisms will contribute to the death of fetus or embryo in particular cases where the program woman is likely to die in the absence of the procedure. I such a case, the death of the fetus is considered the side effect resulting from the medical treatment performed to save the life of the mother.

Conclusion

The moral reasoning based on utilitarianism is common in our moral and political dialogue. The repercussions of our actions usually have a place, and they ought to be taken into consideration. However, we ought to also think regarding other principles of morality, human rights, relevant virtues as well as what the choices and judgments we make say about us. Repercussions matter a lot, although they do not entirely matter. Morality can be said to be more than merely the repercussions of the actions we make.