Among criticisms targeted at the ethical theory of utilitarianism is one that states that it fails to protect people’s rights and freedoms. The critics’ argument is based on the main principles of utilitarianism formulated back in the eighteenth century, their interpretation, and their applicability in the modern world. The purpose of the present paper is to look into this criticism and decide on its validity.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on the utility of acts and people’s decisions. It means that every action should lead to a favorable consequence that would serve best for one or a group of individuals. This principle is called the “consequentialist principle” and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham. He states that “the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that flow from it” (Pojman & Fieser, 2016, p. 103). According to utilitarians, the result must always justify the means. Moreover, an action is deemed right if it brings pleasure or prevents pain, and it is wrong if it fails to provide a satisfactory result.
While having a greater good and happiness as ultimate goals might seem a justified objective, utilitarianism might be criticized from this point. The most popular argument in discussions around this issue is that utilitarian results might justify immoral means, which in turn threaten human rights. Based on the factor whose happiness or well-being is taken into account, actions such as slavery or killing off ethnic minorities might be justified. Another example is police monitoring that might be used for the sake of people’s safety but at the same time violates the right to privacy or free movement.
One might argue that striving for happiness or some abstract “good” is a key to having a better society. Indeed, a situation might occur when some freedom or human right might be deemed as a utility at one moment. It would be cherished and respected, however only up to the moment when it can still be beneficial. Freedom to express oneself can be good for utilitarianists, but if it contradicts the country’s external politics, this stance might easily change and lead to mass censorship and a ban on demonstrations and gatherings.
It brings this argument to the main point that makes utilitarianism wholly problematic: the system proposed by utilitarianism adepts does not have standards based on rights, fairness, or justice. If the judgment is based on the concept of pleasure or utility, then there is hardly a working framework that would ensure any degree of objectivity or fundamentality. Therefore, it does not only protect human rights but denies their existence.
Moreover, the main value in a utilitarian society is the society itself, an entity that can do whatever is necessary to achieve the greatest good for the largest number of people. Therefore, it is also the majority of the most powerful minority (a ruling party, the richest in the community, elders) who are to make these decisions. Since no society is equal as it consists of different groups united by their race, age, income, and other factors, the utilitarian approach can only deepen these differences.
The criticism of utilitarianism seems valid and agreeable. Although the notions of common good and utility have the potential of being a satisfiable ethical principle, utilitarianism hardly proposes protection to people’s rights. This theory does not provide an objective standard of what can be deemed “utility” but rather relies on situational choice. Moreover, prioritizing some undefined majority’s interests, makes fundamental human freedoms and rights conventional.
Reference
Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2016). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong. Cengage.