1
The Ethical Implications of Utilitarianism in Legal Decision-Making: A Philosophical
Analysis
Student’s Name
Arizona State University Tempe
Prof: Marcello Di Bello
PHI 307: Philosophy of Law
October 24, 2023
2
The Ethical Implications of Utilitarianism in Legal Decision-Making: A Philosophical
Analysis
Utilitarianism is one of the most applied ethical theories, for the results of the actions on
all of the society. The actions of judges and the lawmakers are under the influence of the
consequences and the results of the actions on the whole society (Goodin, 2018). On the other
hand, its spatial implementation faces a lot of ethical concerns. Critics stipulate that the ethnic
good for the majority might be reached at the expense of the dissidents or the minority groups
who could be excluded and disregarded. In such a case, the utilitarian quest is cyclical in that it
may fail to consider the inherent value of certain rights or principles including human dignity
and autonomy. And thus, such an omission would definitely question the legitimacy of the law
(Skorupski, 2016). Consequently, it is apparent that every aspect of any justice system must be
considered. While balancing the welfare of society with individual freedoms is difficult, it leads
to serious ethical challenges that require deeper inspection. In this essay, the ethical aspects of
utilitarianism in legal decisions will be examined philosophically and the contradiction between
the social welfare and individual rights in human consideration in matters of justice will be
clarified.
Understanding Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, a widely used ethical theory, echoes the crucial principle of bringing about
the highest possible happiness or utility. Contemporary philosophers say that utilitarianism
stands for the deeds that will bring the good for the greatest part of people. For instance, this is
Singer's position (2011). This is an imperative of consequentialism, where moral value of an
action is proportional to its outcome. On the same note, Utilitarianism places the emphasis in
considering the aggregate welfare not the individual interests as it seems to be in line with the
idea that maximizing the utility should be the foundation for making the ethical decisions (Pettit,
2012). Accordingly, the main of utilitarianism is based on the attitude that the highest degree of
pleasure can be achieved for the greatest majority of people who are guided by a positive
approach to ethics.
3
In the same way, critics of utilitarianism signal, that this very framework contains a
number of challenges and defects. One of the most substantial criticisms of utilitarian economics
is seen in the accusation that the system ignores the needs of individuals, in simple terms,
utilitarian reasoning tends to be indifferent to individual rights. Wolff (2015) and other scholars
argue that under utilitarian calculations the total good of those with higher utility may justify
actions that violate the rights and liberties of the minority and few. On the other hand, these
utilitarian approaches may pose ethical concerns over whether the sacrifice of some rights may
lead to a situation of iniquity, thereby questioning its ability to be compatible with principles of
justice and human rights. This point to the conflict between utilitarian ethics in which collective
welfare becomes more important than personal autonomy. Therefore, the ethical implications of
this approach should be reconsidered.
A point of criticism, however, is the use of methods and units that are difficult to measure
and compare utility. Different individual people may be happy due to different causes, and the
feeling of being happy is not easy to measure, therefore the equations used by utilitarianism are
not able to clarify the idea of happiness. It is contended despite the fact that the judgement of
happiness is inherently subjective, utilitarian decision- making process affects the reliability of
this type of approach because of its dependency over uncertain and arbitrary evaluations of
utility (Shaw & Barry, 2014). This constructive criticism reveals the difficulties of the utilitarian
theory in practice and sets a precedent for discussions of the practicality and usefulness of the
utilitarian doctrine as an ethical basis. Thus, utilitarianism is an attractive strategic creation of
making decisions, however, it has some shortcomings which might discourage it.
Another criticism is that of utilitarianism regarding the risk of neglecting the intrinsic
value of individual autonomy because of the supreme value of utility. Critics oppose the idea of
justifying happiness over all else because it is possible that an emphasis on the overall happiness
may lead to human commodification, which means viewing people as tools in the process of
achieving the maximization of happiness instead of ends in themselves (Sandel, 2012). This
comment thus links the utilitarian outlook that equates utility with the ethical value of an action
to the ethical tension between the moral worth of an individual and the utilitarian calculations.
On the one hand, an utilitarian concentration on consequences may be at the expense of the
values of intentions and moral motives of ethical decision-making. The second part of the
4
sentence is incomplete, not value motives of ethical decision-making. Consequently, it is claimed
that utilitarianism gives a systematic model of moral decisions; however, the critics say that it is
still not rich enough to describe substantial intricacies of ethical reasoning.
Utilitarianism in Legal Decision-Making
Utilitarianism, whose foundation is the consequentialist moral theory, assumes that the
exactly right action is one that brings about the greatest net happiness or utility. In judicial
environments, utilitarianism is commonly used to quantify the effects of different choices and
find the one that would be most useful for society as a whole. Theorists like Singer (2016) in
jurisprudence have been known for their utilitarian ethics approach, where they spotlight its
focus on the public good and its concern with the wider societal impact of legal judgments.
Utilitarianism is here put into practice by weighing the effects of various actions on people and
selecting that which brings the most positive net balance of benefits to them and their
communities.
The utilitarian nature of legal decision making is not difficult to comprehend when the
cases have similarities to the trolley problem, the typical philosophical conundrum that poses the
choice to sacrifice a few lives to save a greater number of people. Ethical decision-making for
lawyers is often a complex process as it involves balancing the rights and interests of individuals
against the common good of the society. While the utilitarian logic may justify choices that can
be considered the best overall decision, these choices may come at the expense of minority’s
rights and interests. For example, policymakers can defend individual rights limitation in cases
when matters of public safety and national security are concerned in order to ensure the general
welfare of the community (Thomson 2018). Moreover, utilitarianism is proving to be the ideal
basis for the weighing of individual rights against the society’s good, specifically in the instances
of public policy and legislation. Legal systems with a view to balancing between protection of
individual rights and the public interest are often the subject of the controversial debates. The
primary concern of decision-makers is calculating the future impact of promulgated laws and
regulations on the society. Integration of consequences into personal and societal benefit, allows
policymakers to reflect and implement public policies that will maximize welfare and at the same
time, preserve individual rights and freedom. Yet, the proper strike between the individual liberty
and the communal good is not easy, and a policymaker must find a way to negotiate with the
5
multiple interests and priorities to achieve the ideal compromise which balances individual rights
with the general good (Melden, 2017).
Utilitarianism also has its say in the debates relating punishment and deterrence regarding
criminal justice systems. Legal rulers rationally take into account the principle of utilitarianism
for the benefit of society in making the reasonable resolutions for the crime punishments. The
goal is to prevent future committing of crimes by individuals while at the same time ensuring
offenses recovery and general well-being of the offenders. Nevertheless, the concern of ethically
using utilitarianism in criminal justice is that there are many questions in terms of fairness and
severity of the offenses. Critics accentuate that the utilitarian arithmetic may ignore the joint
rights and human worth of the criminals, which can produce unjust outcomes. However, the
utilitarianism philosophy remain to be so influential in the sentencing process as well as during
the rehabilitations, affecting both the practices of sentencing and rehabilitation programs
(Glover, 2018).
Furthermore, utilitarianism serves as the primary principle for lawmaking and legislating,
as the policy-makers typically revert to utilitarian assessment of outcomes while evaluating the
potential consequences of laws on society. Policymakers seek to form policies that raise overall
welfare, given that they also address existential dilemmas of society and sustain that which is
common. Utilitarian considerations serve as the guiding principles behind many critical decisions
such as those involving healthcare, environmental regulation, and economic policy, as
policymakers struggle to find the right balance between costs and returns. But while the
utilitarianism theory does face challenges in policy-making, such as balancing multiple interests
and values and difficulties in predicting long-term consequences, it is also widely accepted in
policy-making circles (Kymlicka, 2018). Human rights, being one of the main principles of
utilitarianism, have profound influences on the implementation of laws, providing a way to
evaluate the outcomes of actions and policies on the societal benefits. Utilitarian concepts
underlie the ethical dilemmas, legislative activities and other legal professional efforts that
intrinsically revolve around the promotion of the maximum good for the maximum number of
people, while identifying individuals' rights and society's benefits. Authorities deal with
decisions that have wider implications than striving for outcomes that will promote the welfare
6
of all the people in the society. This contributes towards the growth of justice and common good
in society.
Ethical Implications of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism as the consequentialist ethical theory, states that it is the consequences or
outcomes of an act that determines its morality, thus the utilitarian act has to maximise overall
happiness or utility. But this intention to strive for the best possible outcome is not immune to
the existence of ethical concerns. One of the most notable moral justifications in utilitarianism is
giving special attention to the outcomes no matter how morally wrong the actions that lead to
achieving the greater good might be. From the utilitarian perspective, the tendency to allow the
interests of the many to prevail over ethical principles and fundamental rights may result if a
reasoning is used that suggests that these actions will ultimately increase overall welfare (Mill,
2017). For example, in circumstances where to some extent granting rights or well-being of a
minority group can be less than beneficial for the majority, utilitarianism would be likely to
endorse these actions as maximizing overall happiness. Such utilitarian decisions regularly create
ethical dilemmas for an individual, as they have to face the complicated dilemma between the
consequences of their actions and principles of justice and adherence to moral considerations.
Even more so, utilitarianism presents some grave challenges for justice and fairness as
these effects are often distributed unequally. Utilitarianism involves the balancing of two
conflicting arguments: on the one hand, the interests of the majority may be fulfilled, but at the
expense of the minority rights and interests, which might lead to an unfair result (Bentham,
2019). By example in case of policy-making or distribution, utilitarianism as a philosophy may
overlook the needs and preferences of powerless groups or vulnerable people in favor of
maximizing the well-being of all. This risk is very serious in societies, where certain groups are
already discriminated or disadvantaged by the system as utilitarianism worsens these social
divisions. Therefore, utilitarianism views of collective welfare which may not address
individuals right or interest of all individuals, even if they are not in majority, in the process.
Another aspect of utilitarianism is that it could influence the principle of legality and
social trust, resulting in a danger for the rule of law and the notion of the legal system to be
considered as legitimate. The utilitarian principle for legal decision-making could constitute a
7
threat to legal certainty and regularity because the judge's duty is to apply utility rather than
justice or consistency of procedural law. This breakdown in judicial ethics undermines the
populace’s sense of the law as fair and integral, causing individuals to feel that the legal system’s
considerations are erratic and unpredictable (Sandel, 2012). Furthermore, the utilitarian
considerations in legal contexts could be a subject of discussions on the impartiality and fairness
of the legal procedures being used there, and sometimes even account for prioritizing utility over
procedural justice and due process. Critics opine that a utilitarian legal system targeting only the
welfare of the majority might not be able to respect equal opportunity for all and protect human
rights.
A consequentialist ethical theory aims at the determination of the moral value of action
by means of showing its utility or to maximize overall happiness. Yet, the principle is
philosophically problematic especially when it is juxtaposed against the deontology philosophy.
The principle of deontology as layed down in Kantian ethics is that the moral duties and
principles are to be accepted regardless of the consequence. Certainly, Immanuel Kant specifies
that the categorical imperatives that sets the moral actions ought to be fair and absolute and must
be derived through reason (Korsgaard, 2018). Such a position is arguably the exact antithesis of
utilitarian formulas, focusing on the innate need for moral obligations rather than results. The
ethics of Kant state that there are always certain actions which can never be justified, no matter
what the consequences, while the hedonist utilitarianism moralizes actions based on their
consequences.
The main point of divergence between utilitarianism and Kantianism lies in producing the
moral permission line. On the other hand, the utilitarianism targets attaining the greatest
happiness for the biggest number of people, rather than the Kantian ethics that considers some
deeds to be right or wrong irrespective of the consequences. For instance, lying is taken as
morally wrong in Kantian ethics on account of its violation of the categorical imperative that
commands people to regard others as ends in themselves regardless of the situation (Korsgaard,
2018). This, thus, contrasts the utilitarian point of view, which may hold the view that the ends
justify the means even if that requires to lie and it leads to greater overall utility. So, the
dissonance between utilitarian reasoning and categorical imperative is a philosophical principal
that separates the two ethical directions. Quite a description is made in deontological ethics
8
which is against utilitarianism by stressing on the fundamental moral rules and principles in spite
of the outcome. Kant states that the subject of moral actions must be absolute and universal
principles which are deduced using pure reason (Korsgaard, 2018). This can therefore be
regarded as incompatible with a utilitarian type of calculation that focuses solely on results as if
they overshadow the notion of intrinsic value for moral duties. Kant believes the concepts of
good and bad per se; therefore, the utilitarian principle, according to which only the
consequences of actions determine their morality, becomes a challenging provocation.
Virtue ethics presents a further criticism of utilitarianism, by holistically investigating
character, intentions, actions, and consequences. Virtue ethics is more individualistic than
utilitarianism that looks at the results or consequences of the actions. Instead, virtuous character
development is the main consideration (Crisp, 2020). Proponents of virtuous ethics maintain that
the ethical nature of human beings is not an effect of the process that aims at the outcome which
maximizes the utility but it is a result of accumulating virtues such as honesty, courage, and
compassion. As the virtue ethics say, the moral value of the action is based on the virtuous agent
and the price he/she has paid for the actions, rather than the results he/she has got. This,
however, puts the existence of utilitarianism at risk because it denies its consequentialist
reasoning by insisting that the reason for ethical behavior lies in ethics rather than the pursuit of
the greatest utility. In addition, virtue ethicists re-externalize the assumption of moral trade-offs
that utilitarian calculations often exploit, foregrounding ethical development and complete
wellbeing. Virtue ethics, on the other hand, which aims to instill the values and the traits of
character as the main feature, offers a true critic to the utilitarianism, which is based on the
principle of outcomes. In summary, the defenders of virtue ethics are of the opinion that the
ethical value of an action is dependent not on the nature of the outcome which is resulting from it
but on the character of the agent itself. They affirm the role of virtue education and habit
formation in the development of morality, elaborating this idea that ethical choice is to be
learned rather than just calculating expected consequent.
According to Rawlsian political philosophy, justice as fairness principle is a strong denial
of the utilitarianism theory, which asserts that utility maximization should be given precedence
over justice. John Rawls's work "A Theory of Justice" is a fundamental one, but he employs the
original position and veil of ignorance as a method of thinking in order to derive principles of
9
justice (Rawls, 1999). Among Rawls dispositions, implicit is the fact that the parties in an
original position behind a veil of ignorance are deprived of information about their particular
social situation, wealth status, or natural abilities. The equal treatment is guaranteed and
individual biases are reduced by that because they may generally support principles that lead to
personal benefits. Therefore, Rawls places justice as fairness at the top of his list: he views the
society as responsible for the judging of any arrangement if the latter does not provide equal
rights and opportunities to each and every person in the community, instead of just seeking the
maximization of utility as a whole. This criticism is that the utilitarian approach includes
aggregating happiness through the process of reaching the best of the society without taking into
consideration the distribution of benefits and burdens.
In end, the utilitarianism is the normative ethical theory which is used for the legal
decision-making where this systemic framework presents a framework for deciding the
consequences of actions, but, at the same time it is a complex process. Utilitarianism fits
happiness or utility of society as a main principle and therefore causes ethical dilemmas, maybe
about the balance between the welfare of society and each individual's rights. Critics say
reformulations of utilitarian abundance can lead to the rights of the majority prevailing over
minority rights or deep shallowization of the certain rights or principles. Moreover, the
subjective definition of happiness and the complexities in quantifying and assessing the utility of
different individuals lead to the questions on the reliability and practical feasibility of the
utilitarian approach while deciding on legal matters. Also, if utilitarianism is the basis for justice
then principles will be sidelined and only outcomes will matter. This could even mean that
actions which we may consider morally questionable may be justified in order to achieve the
greater good and thus the ethical character will be affected negatively, resulting in distrust by the
public. The contrast of the two; giving precedence to societal well-being on one hand, and
observing absolute rights on the other, clearly demonstrates the complex ethical questions found
in the legal system. Indeed, despite the mentioned obstacles, utilitarianism is believed to be the
principle that legal decision makers follow, in their effort to work toward the common good and
balance individual rights and societal interest. That is while utilitarianism is a brilliant approach
to ethical decision-making in legal operations, it requires mean deliberations with respect to
ethical issues and should not be overlooked. Through philosophical analysis of utilitarianism and
putting forward its critiques we receive the abilities to identify the complexity and the limitations
10
that are associated with this normative ethical theory. Finally, the ethical issues in utilitarianism
in legal decision making remind us the importance of looking at all of the factors involved in an
issue while making sure that the individuals' rights and values are respected as well and while
making sure that our laws are following the principles of justice, fairness, and ethical integrity.
11
References
Bentham, J. (2019). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford
University Press.
Crisp, R. (2020). Virtue Ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2020 Edition). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/ethics-virtue/
Glover, J. (2018). Utilitarianism and criminal justice: Utilitarianism and criminal justice. In D.
Sobel & P. Vallentyne (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Vol. 4, pp. 231-
253). Oxford University Press.
Korsgaard, C. M. (2018). Kant's moral philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/kant-moral/
Kymlicka, W. (2018). Utilitarianism and its Critics: Utilitarianism and its Critics. In A.
Hatzistavrou & N. Kapartziani (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Philosophical
Foundations of Business Ethics (pp. 223-242). IGI Global.
Melden, A. I. (2017). Utilitarianism in legal ethics. Ethics & the Common Good, 25(3), 126-141.
Mill, J. S. (2017). Utilitarianism. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Pettit, P. (2015). "The Robust Demands of the Good." Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Sandel, M. J. (2012). What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Shaw, William H., and Vincent Barry. "Moral Issues in Business." Cengage Learning, 2014.
Singer, P. (2016). Utilitarianism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Winter 2016 Edition). Stanford University.
Singer, Peter. "Practical Ethics." Cambridge University Press, 2011.
12
Skorupski, John. "The Domain of Reasons." Oxford University Press, 2016.
Thomson, J. J. (2018). Rights and the trolley problem. Philosophical Perspectives, 32(1), 305-
329.
Wolff, Jonathan. "Ethics and Public Policy: A Philosophical Inquiry." Routledge, 2015.
