The Problem of the Use of Force in Utilitarian Ethics

Abstract

There are three main points on the problem of moral grounds of the use of force: non-violence ethics, deontological ethics of force, cosequentialist ethics of force. The simplest version of cosequentialist ethics of force is utilitarian one. Contemporary utilitarians criticize two premises of non-violence ethics: 1) it is absolutely impermissible to treat a person in such a way that she rejects, 2) we are not responsible for the unprevented harm if its prevention requires us to use force. Arguments against the first thesis substantially differ in the hedonistic utilitarianism and the utilitarianism of preferences. The utilitarianism of preferences is more in agreement with the importance that common morality attaches to abatement of violent acts especially killings. The utilitarian criticism of the second thesis rests on the demonstration of the dubious motives that led to absolutization of the prohibition against the use of force and the lack of reasons for the absolute priority of the principle ‘do no harm’ over the principle ‘prevent harm’. The author of the paper makes a conclusion that the utilitarian criticism of non-violence ethics is convincing. The deontological ethics of force rests upon the idea of inviolability of rights and different versions of the double effect reasoning. Utilitarian critics use against it two polemical strategies. The first is to show its internal inconsistency. The second is to prove that intuitions underlying it are products of the evolutionary history of the humankind and thus do not have any normative significance. The utilitarian criticism of the deontological ethics of force is not as strong as the criticism of nonviolence ethics. This implies that there is a necessity to construct a synthetic approach that should be consequentialist by its general structure but adapt some distinctions advanced by deontologists.