- 07 Dec 2010 14:15
#13569926
The rights theory trumps utilitarianism, because the latter is a consequentialist moral theory that allows for the violation of the rights of individuals in the name of the greater good, i.e. noble ends justifying nefarious means. The rights theory says that NO, you cannot trample on some people to better the circumstances of a greater number of other people.
In his article "The Debate Over Utilitarianism," James Rachels provides this scenario:
Another scenario provided by Tom Regan in his article "The Case for Animal Rights":
The belief that ends justify means has lead to some of the worst atrocities in human history. It was Maximilian Robespierre, who sent thousands of innocent people to the guillotine without blinking for the triumph of the revolution and "liberté, égalité, fraternité" for all, who stated "Omelettes are not made without breaking eggs."
In his article "The Debate Over Utilitarianism," James Rachels provides this scenario:
Suppose a utilitarian were visiting an area in which there was racial strife, and that, during his visit, a Negro rapes a white woman, and that race riots occur as a result of the crime, white mobs, with the connivance of the police, bashing and killing Negroes, etc. Suppose too that our utilitarian is in the area of the crime when it is committed such that his testimony would would bring about the conviction of a particular Negro. If he knows that a quick arrest will stop the riots and lynchings, surely, as a utilitarian, he must conclude that he has a duty to bear false witness in order to bring about the punishment of an innocent person.
Another scenario provided by Tom Regan in his article "The Case for Animal Rights":
My Aunt Bea is old, inactive, a cranky, sour person, though not physically ill. She prefers to go on living. She is also rather rich, I could make a fortune if I could get my hands on her money, money she intends to give me in any event, after she dies, but which she refuses to give me now. In order to avoid a huge tax bite, I plan to donate a handsome sum of my profits to a local children's hospital. Many, many children will benefit from my generosity, and much joy will be brought to their parents, relatives, and friends. If I don't get the money rather soon, all these ambitions will come to naught. The once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a real killing will be gone. Why, then, not kill my Aunt Bea? Oh, of course I might get caught. But I'm no fool and, besides, her doctor can be counted on to cooperate (he has an eye for the same investment and I happen to know a good deal about his shady past). The deed can be done . . . professionally, shall we say. There is very little chance of getting caught. And as for my conscience being guilt ridden, I am a resourceful sort of fellow and will take more than sufficient comfort -- as I lie on the beach at Acapulco -- in contemplating the joy and health I have brought to so many others.
Suppose Aunt Bea is killed and the rest of the story comes out as told. Would I have done anything wrong? Anything immoral? One would have thought that I had. Not according to utilitarianism. Since what I have done has brought about the best balance between totaled satisfaction and frustration for all those affected by the outcome, my action is not wrong. Indeed, in killing Aunt Bea the physician and I did what duty required.
This same kind of argument can be repeated in all sorts of cases, illustrating, time after time, how the utilitarian's position leads to results that impartial people find morally callous. It is wrong to kill my Aunt Bea in the name of bringing about the best results for others. A good end does not justify an evil means. Any adequate moral theory will have to explain why this is so. Utilitarianism fails in this respect and so cannot be the theory we seek.
The belief that ends justify means has lead to some of the worst atrocities in human history. It was Maximilian Robespierre, who sent thousands of innocent people to the guillotine without blinking for the triumph of the revolution and "liberté, égalité, fraternité" for all, who stated "Omelettes are not made without breaking eggs."