Examine The Arguments For And Against Utilitarianism By Jere

examine The Arguments For And Against Utilitarianism By Jeremy Benth

Examine the arguments for and against Utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham and Bernard Williams respectively. Ensure to state and support your own position. Discuss a case where a defendant requests a cultural defense to reduce criminal liability, considering the sociological implications of using such defenses, including perspectives like differential association theory, social bond theory, and labeling theory. Analyze the arguments for allowing cultural context in court and decide whether the defendant should be guilty or innocent, proposing an appropriate sentence if applicable.

Paper For Above instruction

Utilitarianism, chiefly developed by Jeremy Bentham, is an ethical theory that posits that the right course of action is that which maximizes overall happiness or utility. Bentham's utilitarianism hinges on consequentialism, emphasizing the outcomes of actions rather than intentions or intrinsic morals. His approach advocates for policies and choices that produce the greatest good for the greatest number, promoting a form of moral pragmatism rooted in the calculation of pleasure versus pain. Critics of Bentham’s utilitarianism, however, argue that it can justify morally questionable actions if they result in net happiness, potentially disregarding individual rights and justice (Shaw, 2016). Furthermore, utilitarianism may overlook minority interests, leading to potential oppression of marginalized groups, which Bernard Williams critically examines by highlighting the importance of moral integrity and individual dignity (Williams, 1973). Williams contends that utilitarianism’s focus on aggregate happiness can sometimes require sacrificing personal integrity and moral commitments, raising concerns of moral alienation (Williams, 1973). Despite these critiques, utilitarianism remains influential in decision-making frameworks, notably in public policy and bioethics, where cost-benefit analyses are pivotal (Singer, 2011).

From a sociological perspective, applying utilitarian principles intersects with theories of deviance and social control. Differential association theory suggests that individuals learn criminal behavior through their interactions with others who endorse such conduct (Sutherland, 1947). If societal norms emphasize collective happiness and utilitarian reasoning, individuals might manipulate such frameworks to justify deviant acts, potentially skewing social perceptions of morality. Social bond theory emphasizes that strong bonds with societal institutions deter deviance; however, if utilitarian calculus becomes the dominant moral guide—prioritizing outcomes over standards—these bonds could weaken, leading to increased deviant behavior (Hirschi, 1969). Labeling theory posits that once individuals are labeled as deviant, societal reactions reinforce further deviance; applying a utilitarian lens might reduce the stigma associated with certain acts if they are justified by outcomes, thus complicating the social response to crime (Becker, 1963). As such, courts considering cultural defenses or utilitarian justifications must navigate these sociological dynamics carefully, balancing societal cohesion with individual rights.

Considering the case of Dong Lu Chen, sociological theories illuminate the complexities of cultural defenses. Supporters argue that recognizing cultural context promotes individualized justice, aligning with the symbolic interactionist perspective that emphasizes subjective meanings in deviance (Mead, 1934). Allowing cultural considerations can humanize defendants, respecting their social backgrounds, and preventing the social labeling of individuals as inherently deviant. Conversely, critics contend that cultural defenses risk perpetuating patriarchal and oppressive norms, particularly affecting vulnerable groups like women and children. Labeling theory warns that condoning acts rooted in certain cultural practices could stigmatize specific communities or reinforce stereotypes (Goffman, 1963). Differential association theory suggests that if cultural norms within immigrant communities favor aggressive responses to perceived dishonor, these behaviors may be reinforced socially, leading to higher risks of violence (Sutherland, 1947). Therefore, from a sociological viewpoint, balancing cultural sensitivity with adherence to universal legal standards is crucial to maintain social order and justice.

In my evaluation, I believe that cultural context should be considered but must not override fundamental legal principles. While understanding the defendant’s cultural background provides valuable insights and promotes fairness, it should not serve as an excuse for behavior that violates core societal norms. In the case of Dong Lu Chen, I would find him guilty of manslaughter due to the deliberate act of violence, but I would recommend a sentence of 10 years, reflecting both accountability and recognition of cultural factors. This approach emphasizes justice while acknowledging that cultural influences do not justify inflicting harm on others. It fosters a nuanced application of sociological insights, ensuring that cultural diversity enriches, rather than undermines, the justice system.

References

• Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Free Press.
• Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.
• Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. University of California Press.
• Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press.
• Sher, J. P., & Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of Criminology. J. B. Lippincott & Co.
• Shaw, W. H. (2016). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.