|
Consequentialism & Utilitarianism
|
Utilitarianism is one of the best known moral theories. Like other forms of consequentialism, the core idea of utilitarianism is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their outcomes. It is the most prominent consequentialist theory. Utilitarianism provides the standard for what counts as good: happiness and well-being of individuals. Explained it in another way, the theory states that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is related to the well-being of sentient beings.
There are two broad categories of ethical theories concerning the rightness or wrongness of actions: consequentialist and non-consequentialist. A consequentialist theory judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the consequences that action yields. In his article, Consequentialism, William H. Shaw explains, consequentialism in its standard form, assert that the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good [28]. With most popular consequentialist theory being Utilitarianism, the theory of Unitarianism can be distinguished into three sub-theories: Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, and Social Practice Utilitarianism. A non-consequentialist theory judges the rightness and wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action itself, not on the consequences it yields. Several examples of non-consequentialist ethical theories are: Libertarianism, Contractarianism and Deontological ethics theories.
Advocates of Utilitarianism believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things such as pleasure and happiness in the society and decreasing the amount of bad things such as pain and unhappiness. The utility of a given actions can be determined by the following measurements: intensity (how strong is the pleasure or pain?), duration (how long it will last?), certainty (how certain is the projected outcome), and extent (how many will be affected). As mentioned above, the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility, Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundation of moral utility or the greatest happiness. According to Utilitarianism, happiness is not merely sensuous pleasures. Not all pleasures are equal. Some pleasures are of higher quality than others such as intellectual pleasures. Pleasure involves explaining how a human being is satisfied. It can be the balance of tranquility and excitement. Utilitarianism suggests that higher pleasures involve: cultivating one’s mind, aiding others and treating them fairly, and helping to improve society at large. According to the greatest happiness principle, as explained above, the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable. This brings us to the golden rule of Utilitarianism: What is good for the whole and good for the individual go hand-in-hand.
In United States, decriminalization of drug use is a subject that is being argued between various groups for quite a long time. One solution to reducing the number of people swept into the criminal justice system for drug law violations is to enact various forms of decriminalization of drug use and possession. Decriminalization is the removal of criminal penalties for drug law violations (usually possession for personal use). Roughly two dozen countries, and several U.S. cities and states, have taken steps toward decriminalization. Examples of those states include Colorado and Alaska. In his article, “Why We Should Decriminalize Drug Use”, Douglas Husak states, the use of a given drug is would not be a criminal offence. We cannot decide whether we have a good reason to punish persons who use drugs in particular unless we know what would count as a good reason to punish anyone for anything [316]. Advocates of decimalization of drug use support their views based on the evidence especially from European countries, where the fear of arrest and prosecution for the use of given drugs is practically non-existent [317]. Critical aspect of this argument should focus on the effect of drug use has on non-adults, and the consumer health. But the downside of advocating decriminalization is that, it fails to address the effects drugs has on kids, and it’s failure to discuss drugs and health [318]. The recent trend makes it important to determine whether or not drug use should be decriminalized from a utilitarian standpoint. That is, would legalizing drug use maximize the principle of utility?
From a utilitarian standpoint, drug use should not be decriminalized. Legalizing drug use does not maximize the principle of utility. Advocates supporting the legalization of drug use often talk about the benefits of it, and tend to attack their opposition criticizing the existing legal drugs abuse. One of their strongest arguments is the mounting financial costs associated with the War on Drugs. But much often, advocates of legalizing drug use tend to forget the cost of drug use from a humanitarian perspective. We all agree that alcohol, smoking, and use of any drug is associated with consequences related to our health. So why we should allow more drugs to be legalized to use? From a consequentialist perspective it does not make sense to do so.
Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only one evaluative principle: Do what produces the best consequences. In fact, however, the theory is complex because we cannot understand that single principle unless we know at least three things: what things are good and bad; whose good we should aim to maximize; and whether actions, policies etc. are made are made right and wrong by their actual consequences. The third point is of vital importance because it strongly relates to this argument of decriminalizing drug use. It emphasizes the results that our actions actually produce or by their foreseeable consequences, the results that we predict will occur based on the evidence that we already have. In his article, Against the Legalization of Drugs, James Q. Wilson mentions that in 1972, the eminent economist Milton Friedman published an essay in Newsweek in which he called for legalizing heroin. His argument was on two grounds: As a matter of ethics, the government has no right to tell people not to use heroin (or drink or suicide); as a matter of economics, the prohibition of drug use imposes costs on society that far exceed the benefits [309]. Even today, this is one of the major facts advocates of decriminalization of drug use points out.
If the drug use such as heroin, marijuana, and cocaine are legalized, state and federal government can earn funds utilizing taxation, and other laws. Legalizing will yield increased drug use thus increasing the income of state governments. Advocates of this approach point out that this will eventually reduce the amount of individuals sentenced to prisons due to drug violations. It also reduce the burden on law enforcement fighting the War on Drugs. Critics often states that we have lost the war on drugs. Whatever the cost of greater drug use, surely they would be less than the costs of our present, failed efforts [311]. Advocates of legalization of drugs also point that we can still have drug prevention programs if use of drugs are legal. But their effectiveness of would depend heavily on first having decided that cocaine use, like tobacco use, is purely a matter of practical consequences; no fundamental moral significance attaches to either [312]. This brings us to the point where arguments about legalizing drugs begin: Is there any reason to treat heroin and cocaine differently from the way we treat alcohol? I support Wilson’s argument. There is no easy answer to that question because, as with so many human problems, one cannot decide simply on the basis of either of moral principles or of individual consequences; one has to temper any policy by a commonsense judgement of what is possible. Alcohol, like heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, is a drug – that is a mood-altering substance – and consumed, excess or not, it has harmful consequences [312]. But why we would legalize another harmful drug given we already know its consequences?
Utilitarianism focus on actions that yields maximum utility for the whole society. We already know about the effects of harmful drugs has on our health. Decriminalization of drugs undoubtedly will increase the consumption by a staggering margin given the population of the United States. This will eventually cause problems in drug user health that the amount of drug related health issues and their subsequent costs will skyrocket. Decriminalization will produce problems related to health care and personal financial burden on families whose members are addicted or has drug related illnesses. We live in a nation where the poor is more exposed to drug use as well as poor has no financial means to acquire access to expensive health care. The burden on government managing the cost of law enforcement and the war on drugs will reduce, but just like the natural law teaches us, financial burden on the individuals increase in terms of people who are affected due to drug use. Therefore, given the consequences, in a utilitarian standpoint, drug use should not be decriminalized.
When applied to real-life ethical issues Utilitarianism can be a best way to approach and solve a problem, but only in limited number of issues. When applied to the issue of whether or not to decriminalize drug use, I think Utilitarianism is the best approach in terms of ethical theory to answer the problem. Although utilitarian theorists disagree about whether judgments of right and wrong should be based on the actual consequences of actions or their foreseeable consequences, in regards to this issue, both actual and foreseeable consequences will reject the decriminalization of drug use. Overall I do not think utilitarianism provides an adequate means for thinking through tough ethical situations. Weakness of the theory is that, often it is used to justify positive results individuals achieve by doing immoral actions. One of the classical examples is that people can exploit others in terms of financial means to become rich. After accumulating so much wealth, the same person can turn to philanthropy. He/she might argue without the financial exploitation philanthropy would be impossible. In my opinion, unethical conduct to achieve a good result is immoral, or of poor human quality. Therefore, personally, I support the non-consequentialist ethical theories which judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences. I would prefer deontology as it is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves especially modern deontological ethics introduced by Immanuel Kant with this theory of Categorical Imperative.
There are two broad categories of ethical theories concerning the rightness or wrongness of actions: consequentialist and non-consequentialist. A consequentialist theory judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the consequences that action yields. In his article, Consequentialism, William H. Shaw explains, consequentialism in its standard form, assert that the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good [28]. With most popular consequentialist theory being Utilitarianism, the theory of Unitarianism can be distinguished into three sub-theories: Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, and Social Practice Utilitarianism. A non-consequentialist theory judges the rightness and wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action itself, not on the consequences it yields. Several examples of non-consequentialist ethical theories are: Libertarianism, Contractarianism and Deontological ethics theories.
Advocates of Utilitarianism believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things such as pleasure and happiness in the society and decreasing the amount of bad things such as pain and unhappiness. The utility of a given actions can be determined by the following measurements: intensity (how strong is the pleasure or pain?), duration (how long it will last?), certainty (how certain is the projected outcome), and extent (how many will be affected). As mentioned above, the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility, Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundation of moral utility or the greatest happiness. According to Utilitarianism, happiness is not merely sensuous pleasures. Not all pleasures are equal. Some pleasures are of higher quality than others such as intellectual pleasures. Pleasure involves explaining how a human being is satisfied. It can be the balance of tranquility and excitement. Utilitarianism suggests that higher pleasures involve: cultivating one’s mind, aiding others and treating them fairly, and helping to improve society at large. According to the greatest happiness principle, as explained above, the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable. This brings us to the golden rule of Utilitarianism: What is good for the whole and good for the individual go hand-in-hand.
In United States, decriminalization of drug use is a subject that is being argued between various groups for quite a long time. One solution to reducing the number of people swept into the criminal justice system for drug law violations is to enact various forms of decriminalization of drug use and possession. Decriminalization is the removal of criminal penalties for drug law violations (usually possession for personal use). Roughly two dozen countries, and several U.S. cities and states, have taken steps toward decriminalization. Examples of those states include Colorado and Alaska. In his article, “Why We Should Decriminalize Drug Use”, Douglas Husak states, the use of a given drug is would not be a criminal offence. We cannot decide whether we have a good reason to punish persons who use drugs in particular unless we know what would count as a good reason to punish anyone for anything [316]. Advocates of decimalization of drug use support their views based on the evidence especially from European countries, where the fear of arrest and prosecution for the use of given drugs is practically non-existent [317]. Critical aspect of this argument should focus on the effect of drug use has on non-adults, and the consumer health. But the downside of advocating decriminalization is that, it fails to address the effects drugs has on kids, and it’s failure to discuss drugs and health [318]. The recent trend makes it important to determine whether or not drug use should be decriminalized from a utilitarian standpoint. That is, would legalizing drug use maximize the principle of utility?
From a utilitarian standpoint, drug use should not be decriminalized. Legalizing drug use does not maximize the principle of utility. Advocates supporting the legalization of drug use often talk about the benefits of it, and tend to attack their opposition criticizing the existing legal drugs abuse. One of their strongest arguments is the mounting financial costs associated with the War on Drugs. But much often, advocates of legalizing drug use tend to forget the cost of drug use from a humanitarian perspective. We all agree that alcohol, smoking, and use of any drug is associated with consequences related to our health. So why we should allow more drugs to be legalized to use? From a consequentialist perspective it does not make sense to do so.
Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only one evaluative principle: Do what produces the best consequences. In fact, however, the theory is complex because we cannot understand that single principle unless we know at least three things: what things are good and bad; whose good we should aim to maximize; and whether actions, policies etc. are made are made right and wrong by their actual consequences. The third point is of vital importance because it strongly relates to this argument of decriminalizing drug use. It emphasizes the results that our actions actually produce or by their foreseeable consequences, the results that we predict will occur based on the evidence that we already have. In his article, Against the Legalization of Drugs, James Q. Wilson mentions that in 1972, the eminent economist Milton Friedman published an essay in Newsweek in which he called for legalizing heroin. His argument was on two grounds: As a matter of ethics, the government has no right to tell people not to use heroin (or drink or suicide); as a matter of economics, the prohibition of drug use imposes costs on society that far exceed the benefits [309]. Even today, this is one of the major facts advocates of decriminalization of drug use points out.
If the drug use such as heroin, marijuana, and cocaine are legalized, state and federal government can earn funds utilizing taxation, and other laws. Legalizing will yield increased drug use thus increasing the income of state governments. Advocates of this approach point out that this will eventually reduce the amount of individuals sentenced to prisons due to drug violations. It also reduce the burden on law enforcement fighting the War on Drugs. Critics often states that we have lost the war on drugs. Whatever the cost of greater drug use, surely they would be less than the costs of our present, failed efforts [311]. Advocates of legalization of drugs also point that we can still have drug prevention programs if use of drugs are legal. But their effectiveness of would depend heavily on first having decided that cocaine use, like tobacco use, is purely a matter of practical consequences; no fundamental moral significance attaches to either [312]. This brings us to the point where arguments about legalizing drugs begin: Is there any reason to treat heroin and cocaine differently from the way we treat alcohol? I support Wilson’s argument. There is no easy answer to that question because, as with so many human problems, one cannot decide simply on the basis of either of moral principles or of individual consequences; one has to temper any policy by a commonsense judgement of what is possible. Alcohol, like heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, is a drug – that is a mood-altering substance – and consumed, excess or not, it has harmful consequences [312]. But why we would legalize another harmful drug given we already know its consequences?
Utilitarianism focus on actions that yields maximum utility for the whole society. We already know about the effects of harmful drugs has on our health. Decriminalization of drugs undoubtedly will increase the consumption by a staggering margin given the population of the United States. This will eventually cause problems in drug user health that the amount of drug related health issues and their subsequent costs will skyrocket. Decriminalization will produce problems related to health care and personal financial burden on families whose members are addicted or has drug related illnesses. We live in a nation where the poor is more exposed to drug use as well as poor has no financial means to acquire access to expensive health care. The burden on government managing the cost of law enforcement and the war on drugs will reduce, but just like the natural law teaches us, financial burden on the individuals increase in terms of people who are affected due to drug use. Therefore, given the consequences, in a utilitarian standpoint, drug use should not be decriminalized.
When applied to real-life ethical issues Utilitarianism can be a best way to approach and solve a problem, but only in limited number of issues. When applied to the issue of whether or not to decriminalize drug use, I think Utilitarianism is the best approach in terms of ethical theory to answer the problem. Although utilitarian theorists disagree about whether judgments of right and wrong should be based on the actual consequences of actions or their foreseeable consequences, in regards to this issue, both actual and foreseeable consequences will reject the decriminalization of drug use. Overall I do not think utilitarianism provides an adequate means for thinking through tough ethical situations. Weakness of the theory is that, often it is used to justify positive results individuals achieve by doing immoral actions. One of the classical examples is that people can exploit others in terms of financial means to become rich. After accumulating so much wealth, the same person can turn to philanthropy. He/she might argue without the financial exploitation philanthropy would be impossible. In my opinion, unethical conduct to achieve a good result is immoral, or of poor human quality. Therefore, personally, I support the non-consequentialist ethical theories which judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences. I would prefer deontology as it is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves especially modern deontological ethics introduced by Immanuel Kant with this theory of Categorical Imperative.