According to utilitarianism and its view on punishment, punishing criminals does not imply giving them what they deserve by exacting revenge or retribution to them. It further asserts that inflicting suffering on the criminals without compensating gain in happiness is very unethical and against the societal requirements (Tunick p. 29 – 38). John Stuart Mill, who is one of the developers of this ethical theory on crime, asserts that ‘actions are right as they tend to promote happiness, and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill p. 12 – 43)). In his definition of happiness, he explains it to mean pleasure and the absence of pain, describes unhappiness as the opposite, where there is pain and the absence of pleasure. In answering the question of “What ought a man to do?” utilitarianism says that he ought to ensure his actions produce the best consequences possible.
The potential reasons for punishing criminals according to this ethical theory include preventing the law offenders from doing more harm, discouraging the potential offenders from committing the same offences, to satisfy the victims of these criminal activities and to reform and educate the law offenders in a bid to make them more productive society members. Additionally, this theory does not only seek to provide happiness for the offenders, but also the members of the society who might be affected by the actions of the offenders (Mill p. 27 – 95).
According to the classical Roman conception of justice, where it is believed that justice entails giving every offender what he or she deserve as the only reason to punish criminals, giving punishment in order to promote happiness violates the categorical imperative . This implies that criminals are treated as means to an end. In the Roman system, law offenders should be simply punished because they have committed a criminal offence and not for any other reason. Additionally, these offenders should be punished proportionally to the nature of the crime.
Utilitarianism only supports distributive justice to the extent which it supports happiness in the society. However, this is impractical in the normal life situation. Even though utilitarianism asserts that members of the society get satisfied with goods once they reach a maximum, the human needs are elastic and they are never satisfied; the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Therefore, socially just allocation of resources cannot easily be practiced in the society.
Euthanasia refers to the act of permitting the death of, or killing people who are helplessly sick or injured members of the society. According to utilitarianism, illness brings pain to the sick person as well as the affected individuals who might include family and friends. Therefore, killing or permitting the death of helplessly sic person in a painless manner would be for the best interest of bringing happiness. In contrast, it is not certain whether the sick people gain happiness when they die, therefore permitting their death should not be translated as giving them happiness. Additionally, happiness to the affected family and friends would not be certain since when people lose their loved ones; they still feel pain in their hearts.
On abortion, utilitarianism objects the idea of legalizing abortion, even for the raped women. According to this theory, which is based on the principles of happiness and pain, abortion would inflict pain on the fetus, therefore, parents who feel unhappy about the fetus they carry in their wombs should not take their happiness to supersede those of the fetus. They should give birth and if they do not wish to rear their children, they could give them away for adoption. This could bring them happiness, as they would not see these kids again to remind them of their sorrows. Additionally, the family that adopts these children would also be happy since they would have been satisfied. Nevertheless, happiness is not easy to ascertain in this case. Even so, there are some cases where healthcare providers for the safety of the mothers would desire abortion. Therefore, this theory could not easily be practiced in relation to abortion.
The principle of double effect aims at providing certain guidelines for the determination of when it is morally permissible to perform an action with the aim of seeking a good end while fully knowing that the action would also cause bad results to occur. Both euthanasia and abortion are examples of the principle of double effect. In both cases, the healthcare providers are fully aware of the ethical considerations related to these acts. Nevertheless, they would consider carrying on with these acts since their main intensions were formerly not the ethical implications. Killing is generally against the ethical practice in the society, however, when they find out that either the expectant mother or the fetus’s life is in danger, and that an abortion would be necessary to save the mother’ life, then abortion would serve rightly in saving life. Additionally, in case of euthanasia, if a patient is helplessly ill, and healthcare providers prove that the person would not gain back their health conditions, then permitting them to die in a painless manner would be the good.
Works Cited:
Tunick Mark. Practices and Principles: Approaches to Ethical and Legal Judgment: Princeton paperbacks. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000. Print.
John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism. Oxford: Parker, Son and Bourn, 1863. Print.
