Utilitarianism And Moral Rights

Utilitarianism Regarding Moral Reasoning and Privacy Rights Utilitarianism is essentially a doctrine within the study of ethics that focuses on the pleasures and pains of an individual in regard to their actions being beneficial to a majority. The principle question the doctrine seeks to answer is, “What ought a man to do?”, with the outcome being his actions provide the best results possible. As a branch of consequentialism (which, on a wider scale, focuses on an action’s outcome being determined by its consequences), utilitarianism is focused on a measure of pains and pleasures which maximize net utility for all people conclusively affected. While there are some cases in which the best available option doesn’t maximize pleasure or pain, …show more content…
The Peeper gets his pictures, keeps them to himself, and is happy, while Ms. York is completely unaware as to the situation and remains happy as well. However, the majority of society would agree that such invasion of privacy is not justifiable under said conditions and therefore is impermissible, irrefutably making utilitarianism defective as a doctrine. If the action brings happiness, it is permissible – in the same way, if it causes harm, it is impermissible. Nevertheless, utilitarianism cannot be relied upon and the perception regarding the Peeping Tom illustration exemplifies that under these circumstances, there are multiple consequences to his actions – not simply an increase in his own …show more content…
The simple act of Peeping in Rachels argument is a violation of moral rights and therefore morally impermissible, making utilitarianism false. Additionally, there are other ways of hypothetically going around the basis of Rachel’s argument that would be considered exceptions to violations of moral rights being permissible. For example, if there were to be a sniper who killed one person who initially had the intention of killing four people, can the sniper’s actions be justified in that three lives were saved rather than one? In this case peeping would not exactly be considered morally impermissible, as the sniper’s actions are looking out for the welfare of several members of society. Although the privacy is being invaded of the people that are technically being protected by the sniper, would you really want to die instead of having your privacy compromised for a consecutive amount of time? You have a choice then to violate someone’s right to privacy or stand by while a perhaps mass genocide occurs. Any rights violation therefore can be justified through a reliable means; this being said, utilitarianism cannot really be depended on as a means to determine an action’s moral permissibility or not in the case of maximum utility. The only basis on which it is considered accurate would be in the case of necessity – it must