Consequentialism
Is it Morally Right to do a Little Evil for a Greater Good?
“It is the greatest good of the greatest number of people that is the measure of right and wrong.” -Jeremy Bentham
Morality as a concept is analytically defined as “conformity to human discourse and conduct.” It incorporates something which I believe is based on an evolutionary construct. Morality has been an essential tool by which the survival of humanity is made more achievable. It has been well-documented that people in the past have done things, which may be considered horrible/ morally wrong today, because it was essential for their survival. In a society guided by order and lawfulness, a system of governance expected of serving the interests of the many, it is interesting to note how exceedingly difficult the terms “good” and “bad”, and “right” and “wrong” are to define. If morality is conceptualized as a means to enhance the happiness—or lack of suffering—of society, then I’m confident in saying that doing a little evil for a greater good is morally right. Consequentialist theories, as opposed to formalist theories, such as utilitarianism (also known as “the greater good”) offers a universally-applicable rational “meaning” for moral terms due to its ability to rationalize morality as a science, of sorts. Specifically, act-utilitarianism offers a cohesive method to examine the morality of a situation and is able to quantify in “utils” the benefit in terms of happiness of an action (Mill, 2007). As such, moral terms such as “should” derive are able to convincingly derive meaning in any situation through number analysis—which action derives the most happiness for the most people is thus the action one “should” go with, and the “good” action versus the other “bad” options. It is due to Act-Utilitarianism’s ability to be universally applied that is so appealing, but also unsettling in many instances; the elimination of suffering for the many often results in occasional events that may
“It is the greatest good of the greatest number of people that is the measure of right and wrong.” -Jeremy Bentham
Morality as a concept is analytically defined as “conformity to human discourse and conduct.” It incorporates something which I believe is based on an evolutionary construct. Morality has been an essential tool by which the survival of humanity is made more achievable. It has been well-documented that people in the past have done things, which may be considered horrible/ morally wrong today, because it was essential for their survival. In a society guided by order and lawfulness, a system of governance expected of serving the interests of the many, it is interesting to note how exceedingly difficult the terms “good” and “bad”, and “right” and “wrong” are to define. If morality is conceptualized as a means to enhance the happiness—or lack of suffering—of society, then I’m confident in saying that doing a little evil for a greater good is morally right. Consequentialist theories, as opposed to formalist theories, such as utilitarianism (also known as “the greater good”) offers a universally-applicable rational “meaning” for moral terms due to its ability to rationalize morality as a science, of sorts. Specifically, act-utilitarianism offers a cohesive method to examine the morality of a situation and is able to quantify in “utils” the benefit in terms of happiness of an action (Mill, 2007). As such, moral terms such as “should” derive are able to convincingly derive meaning in any situation through number analysis—which action derives the most happiness for the most people is thus the action one “should” go with, and the “good” action versus the other “bad” options. It is due to Act-Utilitarianism’s ability to be universally applied that is so appealing, but also unsettling in many instances; the elimination of suffering for the many often results in occasional events that may
Cited: Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, liberty & representative government. Wildside Press LLC, 2007. Rachels, James. "The Utilitarian Approach." The Elements of Moral Philosophy. Seventh ed. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 98-124. Print.