292 Unit 7 Critical reasoning: Advanced Level
The first of these is self-explanatory. If the
consequences of some act are beneficial, then we
say it is a good thing to do. Conversely things
which have unwanted consequences are bad.
But this raises an awkward question: whose
benefit are we talking about? Generally some
people benefit more than others from certain
actions; some may lose altogether. Habitually
selfish people will do what benefits them, or
benefits those they want to please. But few
people would call that a moral principle. It can
be a moral principle only if it benefits more than
just one person and his or her chosen group. The
net gains, overall, must outweigh the losses.
This is sometimes called the utility
principle, or utilitarianism. Its most famous
exponent was the philosopher Jeremy
Bentham. In its simplest form the principle is
that we should always act in ways which result
in the most happiness and/or least distress for
the maximum number of people. It is clearly a
defensible principle. For a start it is not selfish:
it seeks good outcomes for as many people as
possible. You have seen already how it could
be applied to the copyright question. If you
add up everyone’s benefits, large and small, you
get a better total score if copyright is respected
than if the law is routinely broken. But
utilitarianism in some contexts can be seen to
have worrying side-effects. For example, it
may entail that a small minority, or single
individual, has to suffer disproportionately for
the benefit of the greater majority.
In Chapter 7.4 the utility principle could
have been applied to the debate on excessive
imprisonment: harsh penalties for a minority
arguably make the streets safer for the majority.
So on that score an enlarged prison population
would be morally justified, even if it meant
some people being locked up for longer than
they deserve, or on suspicion rather than
proven guilt. A few pay the price of preventing
the supposedly worse consequences of a crime
wave. Many if not most governments operate
this principle to some degree.useful to be aware of, and which are included
in some syllabuses.Activity
Consider the following two lines of argument:
[1] Laws protecting copyright should be
respected because it is in everyone’s
best interest to do so. We all benefit
as a result.
[2] Laws protecting copyright should be
respected because copyright protects
intellectual property, and we are
under a moral obligation not to
steal anyone’s rightful property.
How do these two arguments, for the same
conclusion, differ?Commentary
The first argument gives a pragmatic reason for
respecting copyright. It is that we all benefit as a
result. The benefits are not listed, but the
argument could be reinforced by citing some.
For example, the artists get paid in full; the
companies make more profits and – if they are
ethical too – they pass these on to the consumer
in cheaper prices; and so on. If there were not
these benefits, or others like them, argument
[1] would be empty. Its success depends on
there being better consequences when
copyright is respected than when it is ignored.
The second argument cuts straight to the
principle without considering consequences:
we simply have a duty, or obligation, to respect
copyright and not to help ourselves to
something that is not ours, without payment
in return. Even if there were no benefits, this
would be the right thing to do. Stealing is
wrong in whatever form it takes. This,
effectively, is Dieter’s argument.
There are two rather grand-sounding terms
which distinguish these two forms of argument:
[1] takes a consequentialist approach
[2] takes a deontological approach.