Crime

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the concept that every law or decision that is made should be done in order to produce the best results for the largest number of people. This philosophy is based on hedonistic beliefs because the conclusion of any Utilitarian law is designed to produce happiness and benefit for the majority in the fastest way possible. Laws that are created using the theory of Utilitarianism are based on the end result of every decision, which makes it a form of Consequentialism.

Consequentialism

This is a theory which states that the moral value of any action is based up the final consequences of that action. Therefore, in order to make a moral or ethical decision, the outcome of must be considered first. Many people disagree with this belief because it can lead to behavior that most would consider to be immoral in order to achieve an outcome that is beneficial for the largest amount of people.

Jeremy Bentham

As a law student, Jeremy Bentham was not satisfied with the lectures he was hearing regarding common law. He believed that the rules that made up common law were not well organized and did not take into account the final consequence that would result from those rules. Bentham felt that common law should be done away with in favor of Utilitarianism, and is generally recognized popularizing the phrase "That action is best which procures the greatest happiness of the greatest number." He felt that the only true motivation any person has is based entirely on whether or their actions would to a pleasurable or a painful outcome.

The Argument Against Utilitarianism

The biggest criticism about Utilitarianism is that it may allow for activities which can be harmful to an individual or a small number of people in order to provide a benefit for a larger group. People who share this opinion have several arguments to back their point up.

One is to say that in following the basic meaning of Utilitarianism, it would be acceptable for a group of people to steal from an individual who had more money than they did. The end result would be beneficial for the greatest number of people, but in the end it would be harmful to others.

Another argument is that Utilitarianism would allow for government officials to lie to the public. It is possible that the lies they would tell would give happiness to the people, whereas the truth might have the opposite affect.

Utilitarians attack this criticism by saying they believe that the act of stealing would have a negative effect on the population as a whole, so the end result of any form of robbery would not be pleasant or happy. They also suggest that a politician who lies to their constituents will be deemed untrustworthy and not fit for public service, which would also have an overall negative outcome. Therefore they would claim that these examples are not relevant to Utilitarian beliefs.

While the basic concept of Utilitarianism may be for the good of the majority, the practice of this philosophy has never become wide spread. Because it primarily seeks to take the final consequence of any action into consideration, many consider the methods and practices that are used to reach those results to be immoral and negative for society.