Among the many challenges proposed against utilitarianism one is that sometimes
utilitarianism requires us to violate even innocent people’s moral rights. To better illustrate the
challenge an example will be presented, and then follow with a possible response from the
utilitarian.
Intuitively we may believe that an ethical theory would not support actions that would
violate the moral rights of innocent people. So, the proposed challenge to utilitarianism can be
viewed as follows; An ethical theory is wrong if it violates the moral rights of innocent people.
Sometimes utilitarianism requires us to violate even innocent people’s moral rights. Therefore,
utilitarianism is wrong. Now, from the challenge we can see that a specific version of
utilitarianism is being targeted. Universalistic utilitarianism is the pursuit of maximizing
happiness for all sentient beings. The challenge introduces the innocent (people that have done
nothing wrong) and their moral rights (happiness). In addition, the action that brings about the
violation of the innocent’s moral rights (brings unhappiness) must also bring happiness to a
collective of persons (or sentient beings) that somehow outweighs the suffering of the innocent.
Now let’s image a case to illustrate this challenge. Three adolescent boys (Group A) have
just got their hands on a half-filled can of spray paint. Group A meets up with two of their other
friends (Group B) and asks them to join them on a late-night escapade. Fueled by raging
hormones and a desire of the approval of their peers, Group A breaks into their school, spray can
in hand. Group B, ignorant to the situation, waits in the front of the school. Group A takes turns
vandalizing walls with profanity, creative insults towards each other’s mothers, and various
forms of phallic symbols. The campus security (C) approaches and the boys run. C only manages
to catch Group B that waited at the front of the school. Group B is punished for the other boy’s
vandalism.
The challenge proposed would force the utilitarian to claim that punishing Group B by C
was the right action. The punishment was brought on the minority of the entire group (2/5) and
allowed for the majority (3/5) of the group to escape fulfilled and happy. Whether guilt or sorrow
for their friends being punished outweighs the happiness brought from the vandalism is difficult
to measure, so let’s assume that it just barely outweighs it. It may seem that utilitarianism is not
able to attach punishment to the one that commits a wrong-doing and is only able to determine
the rightness of an action based on minimizing the suffering of a collective/maximizing the
happiness of the same collective. One on utilitarian ground could argue that C made the decision
that they did due to limited knowledge about the entire situation. Another way of defending the
utilitarian position would be to implement the protection of the innocent into the theory. This
updated version could go as follows: An action is right such that it maximizes happiness for all
sentient beings and protects the innocent.
Word count: 501