Does utilitarianism threaten individual rights? What if the sum total of the pain caused by sacrificing the civil rights of a minority is less than the sum total of the pleasure derived as a result by the majority?
John Stuart Mill tried to rebut the objection that utilitarianism cannot account for individual rights. He argued that, far from being in tension with individual rights, the principle of utility was actually the justification for protecting rights. In other words, Mill believed that protecting individual rights is the best way to increase the sum of happiness in the long run. Was Mill right? Is this the best reason for not violating people’s basic rights? Give your rationale.
This is a tough one because we are all individuals and not any of us is greater or lesser than the other. Only one person can be the judge of that. It is paramount that we protect individual rights so as they don't dictate what the majority want. Example, We used to have christmas plays in the elementary schools but now if one parent objects no one can do it. So we have 100 parents for it and 1 against it, so the one gets their way. This is what is wrong with society today. You can't please all the people all the time. Compromise's must be made and people must be willing to accept that they will not always get their way. There are things we do in our PE Dept. that I don't always agree with but the majority rules (were my individual right ignored? I don't think so. In this case the majority's rights outweighed mine), so I accept it, get over it and move on. Yes I may not agree but I am smart enough to know this is how it is going to be, and you know what? Life goes on.
ReplyDeleteR. Gill
Protecting the rights of the individual is the best way to increase happiness in the long run. Each person is important, and no one is more important than another. We have to value the rights of each person on this earth if we value the reason why we are on this earth to begin with. Each of us has a purpose, and we must not become an elitist society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mill that respecting individual rights maximizes the utility of society but this doesn't strike me as the best reason to respect human rights. Mill's argument allows for both atrocities like genocide and what Madison called the "tyranny of the majority". To truely respect the minority viewpoint requires us to believe that it has a value in and of itself, rather than just as a means to an end.
ReplyDeleteWe are persons, not worker bees in a hive, nor cogs in a machine called society. Any economics or justice that doesn't realize this will not endure. To seek my pleasure or my individual rights, while denying the same to another is an affront to the creator of us both.
ReplyDeleteThe feminist of the past fought for the rights of women to not be treated as possessions. The feminist of today fight for the right to choose to end the life of another person as if it were their own possession. How does the utilitarian answer the question of individual rights in this case?
I agree with Jay's comment. Every individual has to be seen or have the freedom to show/prove their value. I believe Mill wrote, "living according to custom or convention or prevailing opinion prevents one from achieving the highest end of human life--a full and free development of human faculties. (Justice)
ReplyDeleteWe have individual rights, but we don't. My individual right to express my religious beliefs at school has been taken away. My guess is the majority of our student body and faculty are Christian. So because of a few, the rest suffer. In this case, individual rights don't jive with the greatest good.
ReplyDeleteMore references to religion are appearing in our blogs, and I find myself in the uncomfortable minority. It is difficult for me to feel that we are discussing individual rights and wrongs, if we are referencing a collective of predetermined rights and wrongs. That said, Mills' "sum of happiness" is accurate, when the majority benefits from a decision - there is simply more mass. What seems awkward, though, is that the majority can change. So, does the previous "good" now become the "bad"? Would Mills encourage middle-, low-, and poverty-level humans in an area to demand that the wealthy minority distribute their wealth to others? Wow - that would really increase the sum of happiness!
ReplyDeleteEvery person has individual rights, but once he or she is a member of a group (as we all are as members of society), he or she gives up some of those individual rights. According to Mill's beliefs, I cannot argue that any decision I make will affect myself and only myself. In one way or another any decision I make, however small, is going to impact other members of society.
ReplyDelete