Is aiming for the best possible consequences for every action the most ethical way to behave?
Anthony Coogan, Lim No, I don’t think so. Some philosophers, notably utilitarians, say yes. According to utilitarians, the right thing to do is to maximise utility, or welfare – to seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham held this view, as do contemporary utilitarians. One of the most powerful reasons to question the utilitarian idea is that it fails to respect individual rights. Suppose a large majority despises a minority religion, and wants to ban it. Even if the persecuted minority suffers greatly, banning the religion might well maximise utility, or the overall happiness. But the happiness of the majority would not be a sufficient justification for persecuting the minority. Those who defend consequentialist ethics might reply that the violation of individual rights (to religious liberty, say) is itself a bad consequence. If non-utilitarian considerations, such as respecting categorical duties and rights, count as a
