When we consider the morality of a state Bentham says moral actions are those which produce the most happiness for the greatest number of people, so it’s not as simple as revenge in terms of something like justice. You first need to calculate the pleasure over the pain caused. First of all utilitarianism simply put is the theory of the greatest happiness to the greatest number, which is a theory that is commonly assimilated today in politics and everyday life, increasing the amount of happiness in the world is a common goal everyone can share.
Now the idea of utility which is core to government in regard to political obligation only functions as an alternative to the social contract theory, so for utilitarian political obligation to work this farcical idea of ancient people who lived nomadic existences coming together and signing a contract before even having a common language or even writing has to be dropped, which I think is fair. The main criticism of utilitarian political obligation is the fact that the actual theory is so brief, I think that could also be one of its main strengths in some ways. All that is said is that fulfilling you’re political obligation is thought to contribute to the greater good and happiness of the greatest number of people. One of the main counter arguments to this rationale is that of raising questions around quantifying happiness. Calculating happiness is always so vague there is no exact measurement or even a way of measuring happiness so if there is no way of measuring how happy the state makes us then how do we attribute how much gratitude is owed to the state?
Hobbes however was a believer in the social contract theory. He believed that society was created though a mutual agreement of people coming together to help one another survive. That before that point people lived individual lives occasionally crossing paths in a state of nature, which is the state in which there is no law. Therefore because you entered into a social the state had power over you, because you agreed that it should as a means of governing a people fairly and to receive the protection and support of the community resulting in the utilitarian principle of greatest happiness for greatest number. This idea is criticized in terms of the use of the death penalty as it goes without saying you would never agree to be executed. In other words you would never enter an agreement allowing another party to forsake your human rights, when you entered the agreement to protect them.
When you live in a society you naturally agree to obey by its laws, and you receive rights such as the right to life, so another person does not have the right to end your life and you do not have the right to end theirs and because you agreed to live in that society and have those rights to life why should the government be able to disavow those rights? Put simply if an ordinary person is not allowed to kill surely it’s hypocritical for a government to be allowed to kill its citizens; fairness would dictate that the right to take a human life should belong to no man and that is just.
In these terms the death penalty is not a deterrent because you’re not setting a moral example, because on one hand you’re saying it’s wrong to kill and on the other you’re saying it’s not wrong to kill if it’s the government that has decided to kill you, thus legitimising murder. Another fault Hobbes points out in terms of the death penalty is that the sovereign is not allowed to be executed by his people. The theory is if the people have come together to elect and decided as a group to give that person power over them, they are then responsible for whatever their sovereign may do. Executing the sovereign would going back on your decision.
“A criminal who, having renounced reason hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or tyger."
John Locke
John Locke was also a believer in the social contract theory but he takes the exact opposite approach, it’s his belief that when someone enters into the contract of the society they agree not to commit crimes such as murder. Everything outside of the contract of society is in the state of nature, without law where everyman fends for himself. Therefore if they commit a crime such as murder they are in direct breach of that contract, hence they are now outside that contract in a state of nature at the level of an animal. Since the offender is at the level of an animal they are not above just being put down like an animal, it’s almost a duty to put down someone that is an animal.
“In any case, frequent punishments are a sign of weakness or slackness in the government.” ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
Hobbes was quoted as saying that life outside of society in the state of nature was brutish and short, which Locke also as a supporter of the contract theory also held so he preferred banishment in lieu of execution because he naturally assumed life as an animal a kin with death.
Works Cited
Green, T. H. (1882). Ethics, Metaphysics, and Political Philosophy. Mander, W. J. &
Dimova-Cookson, M. Oxford University Press, (2006).
Locke, John (1689) Two Treatises of Government
Losco & Baker, AmGov, 2012, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, 2012)
Plato (1509) Phaedo
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1762) The Social Contract
Schmalleger, F. (2012). Criminology today: An integrative introduction (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
