Jeremy Bentham and the Philippines’ War on Drugs

JAY PEE B. ILACAS

Jeremy Bentham

Born in 1748 in London, the son and grandson of lawyers, Bentham attended Westminster School before, at 12, going to Oxford University. He then trained for a career in law, but never practiced. Instead, he pursued his own interests, and later in life an inheritance allowed him to keep writing and researching without worry (Butler-Bowdon, 2013). Moreover, Bentham was an English legal philosopher and a social reformer.

Bentham wrote voluminously and his papers are still being transcribed. He corresponded with American founding father James Madison, South American revolutionary Simon Bolivar, political economist Adam Smith, and French revolutionary Mirabeau. He favored making homosexuality a private matter instead of a criminal offense, opposed slavery, supported women’s equality and the right to divorce, and was a promoter of open government, writing that “Where there is no publicity (i.e. full disclosure) there is no justice”. As part of his drive for criminal reform, he spent many years developing the influential “Panopticon” prison concept, though his National Penitentiary was never built (Butler-Bowdon, 2013).

Living during the time of the Industrial Revolution as well as the French and American Revolutions, Bentham recognized that the society in which he was living was rapidly changing. Traditional institutions and beliefs were being questioned and replaced, however there were many injustices that still existed at this time. Women were not considered equal, animals did not have rights, and slavery was being practiced. Having himself studied law, Bentham sought for social reform on these issues, as Bentham saw society as a collection of individuals (philosimply, n.d.).

In 1823, Bentham founded the utilitarian newspaper the Westminster Review, and three years later helped set up the University of London, which later became University College, London. Its ethos was openness to all, irrespective of wealth or religious affiliation (in contrast to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge).

Bentham died in 1832 and, true to his principles, left his body to science rather than have it buried. His exterior mummified body was dressed and eventually placed on display at University College, London (Butler-Bowdon, 2013).

Other books of Bentham include Fragment on Government (1776), Defense of Usury (1787), Panopticon (1787), Parliamentary Reform Catechism (1817), and A Treatise on Judicial Evidence (1825).

Bentham’s Ethical Theory

        Jeremy Bentham believed that the individual has a natural interest in self-preservation, which manifests itself as the desire to seek pleasure and to avoid pain. Seeing this as the basis of happiness, he therefore encouraged society to try to maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain of its citizens. This is known as the “greatest happiness principle,” or the “principle of utility.” Bentham writes, “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” This philosophy, known as utilitarianism, as Bentham puts forth in his work "An Introduction to the Principles of Moral and Legislation"

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign

masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what

we ought to do, as well as determine what we should do”.

“The business of government is to promote the happiness of the

society, by punishing and rewarding. That part of its business

which consists in punishing, is more particularly the subject

of penal law. In proportion as an act tends to disturb that

happiness…will be the demand it creates for punishment’.

“Pleasures then, and the avoidance of pains, are

the ends that the legislator has in view; it behooves

him therefore to understand their value” (Butler-Bowdon, 2013).

He explains that an individual pursuing his own happiness cannot be considered inherently “right,” since in doing so he might cause considerable harm to others. In order to determine what is right, one must therefore look at what the result will be for everyone. Actions should therefore be judged on the basis of whether they will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Since, “one man is worth just the same as another man,” Bentham’s principle of utility therefore assumes that everyone in society should be considered equal (philosimply, n.d.).

Ganesan (2014) cited that Bentham was the first to give an expression to the philosophy or moral theory of utilitarianism.  His idea has a moral intuitive appeal, and is very simply: the right thing to do, i.e. the principle of either political or personal morality is

to maximize utility. Utility is the balance of pleasure over pain and happiness over suffering, i.e. general welfare or collective happiness. Bentham's reasoning are as follows: (1) we are governed by pain and pleasure, and any moral system must account for both by maximizing utility/happiness, i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number; (2) as a community, all are equal, and each's happiness/suffering must be added/subtracted. The maximized sum total must reflect the decision of a society, and used for political, moral and social reasoning.

Moreover, let's discuss the moral, social and political aspects of Bentham's philosophy:

Moral Philosophy:

“By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness.”

“It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.”

Bentham borrows the phrase, "the principle of utility" from David Hume, and refers to actions that promote happiness to a larger group of people. The moral obligation of all is that which results in greater happiness for a larger number of people, and anything that doesn't is therefore morally wrong. That is, morality can be reduced to principles of sympathy and antipathy. According to Bentham, there were two major advantages to his moral philosophy a) it was clear, and hence could be used to resolve conflicts b) his principle relies on human equality, i.e. "one man is worth just as much as another man/each person is to count for one and no one for more than one".

Bentham consider the extent of pleasure, the happiness of the community as a whole is nothing other than the sum of individual human interests. The principle of utility, then, defines the meaning of moral obligation by reference to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people who are affected by performance of an action. Similarly, Bentham supposed that social policies are properly evaluated in light of their effect on the general well-being of the populations they involve. For instance, punishing criminals is an effective way of deterring crime precisely because it pointedly alters the likely outcome of their actions, attaching the likelihood of future pain in order to outweigh the apparent gain of committing the crime. Thus, punishment must "fit" the crime by changing the likely perception of the value of committing it (Ganesan, 2014).

Bentham also notes “that the principle of sympathy and antipathy is most apt to err on the side of severity”. When a group hates certain behavior, it will want to punish the doer excessively, way beyond the actual negative effects of the crime, and such punishments will have knock-on negative consequences. And yet, “the happiness of the individuals, of whom a community is composed, that is their pleasures and their security, is the end and the sole end which the government (legislator) ought to have in view (Butler-Bowdon, 2013).

Political Philosophy:

"Liberty is the absence of restraint”.

In terms of law, for as long as one does not hinder others, he is free. He holds the view that liberty is pleasant and hence good, and restriction of liberty is painful therefore, evil. Since the nature of Law is to restrict, or result in restriction of liberty, he viewed it as "negative" or evil. However, he did recognize that law was necessary to maintain order in society, and good laws are critical for the functioning of a good government, and the well- being of a community. Bentham saw law, as means for expressing the will of the sovereign.

Utilitarian Ethics of Philippines’ War on Drugs 

        Today, Philippines is put in hot waters and the whole world is looking at us closely because of the unpopular and unprecedented all-out war drug campaign of President Rodrigo Duterte. Nevertheless, the President have been very vocal about his “bloody” war against illegal drugs since the beginning of his candidacy. He has been consistent in using tough language in his war against crime and drugs. During the presidential campaign, Duterte made the capacity to kill as the sine qua non (highest good) for the presidency.

            Immediately after taking office on June 30, Duterte launched Oplan Tokhang (Operation Tokhang, a combination of two words meaning to “knock” and “plead”. A “community-based” approach, wherein village chiefs and residents are encouraged by police to help compile neighborhood watch lists of suspected drug users and dealers. Based on the list and other intelligence, the police conduct house-to-house visits, invite alleged users to sign a waiver promising to stop using drugs, or submit themselves to a rehabilitation program. Police records show that more than 4 million homes have been visited while 807, 659 people have surrendered as self-confessed drug users or dealers (theatlantic, 2016).

            However, the abovementioned drug campaign wasn’t enough to crackdown illegal drugs and other related crimes. Killing have become integral to the narrative of the government’s war against the public menace. There have been three types of killings in the anti-drug war: vigilante killings, police killings, and collateral damage.

Not surprisingly, it has been bloody indeed.

            Less than a month into Duterte’s presidency, over 300 drug-related killings have been recorded. Most have been shot during police operations. Others were killed by unidentified gunmen and vigilantes (Curato, 2016). Just six months after he took oath into office, the Philippine National Police (PNP) has reported 5, 617 drug-related deaths, 1, 959 at the hands of the police – the result of shoot-outs during drug bust operations, and they say – and 3, 658  vigilante-style killings, usually performed by masked men on motorcycles in pursuit of marked targets; and these brutal and excessively killings are continuously increasing  (theatlantic, 2016).

            President Duterte has never explicitly explained his justification for mass killing, although he keeps on telling verbally to the public that he wants to “end” illegal drugs “at all costs”. Duterte once said, “We will not stop until the last drug lord… and the last pushers have surrendered or are put either behind bars or below the ground, if they so wish”.

            In his Inaugural address, he gave us a foretaste of the basis for his worldview: “I have seen drugs destroyed individuals and ruined families”. Also, in his first month State of the Nation address (SONA), he said, “Human rights must work to uplift human dignity. But human rights cannot be used as shield or an excuse to destroy the country – your country and my country.

            From these pronouncements, we infer that the moral philosophy underlying the Duterte’s anti-drug war is utilitarianism.

            Utilitarianism is “the doctrine that actions are right if they are essential or for the benefit of a majority”.

            This moral philosophy is one of the school of ethics as consequentialism. In this school, the measure of morality rests on the “consequences” of man’s actions.

            President Duterte’s war against drugs therefore, can be considered as “state of consequentialism” since we are dealing here with a state-sanctioned program. Under this conviction, “all actions, practices, and policies that promote the overall welfare of society are morally right, and those that interfere are morally wrong”.

            From Duterte’s view, the consequence of the drug trade and drug addiction is the unacceptable tearing of the fabric of society. There is great truth in this. The pernicious effects of drugs, not only in the Philippines but in every country, can be seen in the compulsive search for artificial enjoyment, in the waste of unproductive lives, and in the ensuing waves of criminality. All of these, plus the loss of hope, weigh heavily on the mind and on society (Lores, 2016).

            In fairness to the government, police reports say that they were able to arrest some of the bigwigs in the illegal drugs – the drug lords like Jaybee Sebastian, Erwin Espinosa, to name a few, and were able to arrest Sen. Leila de Lima for allegedly orchestrating drug-trafficking ring.

            Citing a report by the Philippine National Police (PNP), Communications Secretary Martin Andanar said crime volume went down by 9.8 percent to 50,817 from 56,339 in the same period last year. The average monthly crime rate hit 49.15, down by 11.51 percent from 55.54 last year. The average monthly crime rate refers to the average number of crime incidents in a given period of time for every 100,000 inhabitants per month (Romero, 2016).

            We understand the passion, ardent desire, and maybe the anguish of our President to curb illegal drugs and other-related crimes quickly, but would this justify to kill someone without due process of law? Can the government use immoral means to achieve the moral purpose of cleansing society of drugs?

           

Criticism Against Utilitarian Ethics of Duterte’s War on Drugs

A hasty observation of comments in the social media and everyday talk is exposing of the kind of society in which we now live. The issue on the citizens’ safety and security are at stake, whether you are involved in illegal drugs trade and may become the subject of extra-judicial killing; or victim of heinous crimes or drug-related crimes.

            Underpinning the President’s tough talk on drugs is deeply worrying public sentiment that affirms, legitimizes and even celebrates the spike on drug-related killings. Carlos Bodoni calls this the Titanic Syndrome: A contagious euphoria while country is sinking.

            Today, it seems like the discussion of crime and punishment is overwhelmingly driven by emotions than evidence. Even though there is no compelling scientific evidence that death penalty is a deterrent to crime and no “war against drugs” has ever succeeded, none of these facts matter to an anxious public bent on punishing people they perceive to be scum of society.

            Penal populism is the term by sociologist to describe this phenomenon. It is driven by feelings of anger and disillusionment with the slow procedures of the criminal justice system. Toughness and immediate gratification are prioritized while long-term and tedious strategy of reforming the criminal justice system is viewed as a policy supported by politicians with no balls and citizens who are biased and out of touch (Curato, 2016).

            If the all-out war drug campaign of the Duterte Administration is anchored with the utilitarianism principle “greater happiness for greater number of people”, it is reasonable because the ultimate goal promotes welfare of the general society. But, the method Duterte has chosen to achieve the principle ought to be immoral and inhumane. Lores (2016) stressed that if it were possible to make changes that improve the general welfare without a single individual being worse-off – the Pareto Efficiency – then the utilitarian principle would be perfection itself.

            The utilitarian doctrine as maybe the guiding principle of Duterte’s war against drugs through extra-judicial killings have the following arguments:

 First, our Constitution disallows it. The Bill of Rights, Article III Sections 1 and 14 of our Constitution states that, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property…held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law”. So, to circumvent the constitutional grant of human rights, Duterte has claimed the influence of drugs has “reduced human beings to a bestial state”. He has actually made the final judgment drug addicts are “no longer viable as human beings” and that “junkies are not human”. In addition, when we dehumanize people we are saying that they are beyond rehabilitation (legal concept) and redemption (a spiritual concept). Therefore, the indiscriminate killings in the anti-drug war, whether the killings are conducted by vigilantes or by police personnel, are contrary to the norms and ideals enunciated in our Constitution (Lores, 2016).

Second, the desirable consequences expected from the war cannot be determined with absolute certainty. Neither can they be guaranteed in the long-term. History tells us though. The parallels between Duterte’s war and the Thai and Indonesian experiences are remarkable.

In early 2003, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra launched an anti-drug campaign that, like Duterte’s, had overwhelming popular support. The immediate gains were visible and significant: a tenuous peace and reduced crime rate. By 2005, however, the campaign had lost popular support and in the following year, Shinawatra was overthrown in a military coup. Today, Thailand is caught once again in a drug crisis.

Between 1983 and 1985, Indonesian President Suharto set off, not an anti-drug war, but more of an anti-crime wave dragnet. The operations were carried out by military death squads named “Petrus” which also the inspiration of Duterte’s crackdown in Davao in 1989. The estimates of the criminals put to death range from 2, 000 to 3, 000 – and as high as 10, 000. Today, Indonesia, despite having death penalty, is caught in a drug crisis just like Thailand and Philippines. And, in reversal roles, Indonesia is currently mulling to imitate Duterte’s war.

Other anti-drug wars have been conducted in other countries, such as Mexico, Colombia, Portugal, Switzerland and the American proxy wars in Latin America, Afghanistan, and Africa. By now, the lesson should be as clear as day: nowhere on earth and at any time has a murderous anti-drug war succeeded (Lores, 2016).

Utilitarianism vs. Kantian Ethics and Biblical Teaching: The Case of Philippines’ War on Drugs

       

        Two famous philosophers named Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant examined the nature of morality a long time ago and they formed two different theories of moral philosophy.

            Bentham formed the consequentialist utilitarian theory which evaluates the moral rightness of a decision based on its outcome, while Kant formed the deontological moral duty theory which evaluates the moral rightness of an action no matter what the consequence (Wolff, 2012).

            Kant’s theory on mortality is derived from the Greek “deontology” which means obligation. According to Kant’s Ethics, “the more difficult the duty, the greater the moral value”. This means that choosing to tough out the dying process naturally is more important than ending it at will. In addition, Kantian Ethics believe that the law should be followed to establish greater satisfaction in knowing that one has followed the law (Kantian vs Utilitarian Ethics of Euthanasia, 2010).

            Kant’s ethics is guided by the fundamental principle called Categorical Imperative. Kant’s famous statement of this duty is: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (McCormick, 2001)

            In the case of Duterte’s War on Drugs where many lives have already curtailed, we use the two moral philosophies to judge its ethical significance or value. Broadly speaking, Bentham would first consider the outcomes of both actions and evaluate how much pleasure or pain either action will cause, while Kant would consider the action of killing someone and evaluate if the action is morally “right” or “wrong”.

Bentham’s system of ethics takes no account of intentions of our actions, and as a result, the unethical intention of killing a drug addict/personality can be justified. He believes that an action is morally “right” only if it produces the most happiness and the least pain for the greatest number of people affected directly or indirectly by that action. Bentham would say that the perpetrator is justified in killing the drug addict because it maximizes utility of the general society.

Conversely, before Kant decides if killing a suspected drug personality is moral or immoral, he would consider if killing him will respect the goals of humanity. He would want us to act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in our own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never just the means. Kant’s theory suggest that the rightness and wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences; even in in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. Therefore, a police personnel for instance, as perpetrator would not be morally justified in killing the violator (K, 2013).

Furthermore, Biblically speaking, in Exodus 20:13 the Ten Commandments says “Thou shall not kill”. This is repeated in Matthew 5: 21 where it says “Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment”. Therefore, it is very clear that killing someone is a mortal sin.

However, self-defense and war may be used as an alibi but premeditated and preventative killing is not self-defense. And while the term “war” has been applied to the anti-drug campaign, this is by no means war in the formal sense. If this were truly a war, the enemy would be China from where the chemicals needed to manufacture drugs come, and where Duterte has admitted the drug lords reside (Lores, 2016).

The intention of President Duterte may be for greater good but the means in achieving it through violence acts do not justify the ends.

Conclusion

        Our battle against drugs has just started. This may take us a long way and painful journey depending on the long-term and lifelong solutions designed by the government to solve this perennial problem. But who are the primary victims in this war on drugs? The poor!

            The poor need support so they can be empowered and become productive members of the society since most of their reasons why they engaged in illegal drugs is poverty. Use this problem on drugs to be an opportunity to turn the poor as part of the solution and as partners; assisting them overcome their hardships in life by providing them stable source of income, hence they become responsible members of the society.

            There are obviously a number of alternative solutions to the problem that can be employed by the government and not merely depending on brutal war that disregards the sanctity of life. Besides, killing a drug pusher or user does not end the problem instead it will only generate fear and horror among the people.

            Recognizing the rampancy of the drug problem in the country is only the first step. Instead of inflicting fear among the citizenry, the national government must initiate a cohesive effort in dealing with the drug problem (Press, 2016).

            Moreover, institutional reforms are needed by our laws, police, courts, prisons, local governments, and support services to enable the criminal justice system more effective and more responsive to the needs of the general society.

            The police being the frontline service for combating crime in the country should take the lead in capacitating themselves to be more effective in their crime-fighting functions. Institutional design reforms like professionalism, capacity-building, transparency, accountability, and rule of law measures shall be undertaken by the law enforcers.

            Strengthening the law enforcement and justice systems – making it fair and just and efficient – are long term solutions that can bring lasting and more favorable results. The government’s use of untethered violence will not strengthen these institutions; they are made more vulnerable to “particularistic capture’ instead (Santos, 2016).   

            Engaging in an all-out war against drugs is beyond the power of the government alone. This campaign can only be deemed successful with the engagement of the public (Press, 2016). As citizens of this ailing country our active involvement, cooperation and strong support to the government in its quest to end drug menace through non-violent and effective means will pave way for our success in this worthwhile endeavor.

            What we’re going through at present should serve as forewarning of the turmoil that engulfs the nation. It is a bitter lesson to be learned though. But, in the future, it is hoped that the ability to foster life, the ability to move the nation forward socially, economically and spiritually, and the ability to embrace all citizens inclusively shall be valued and be given ample priority and importance by the government - a government existed of the people, by the people and for the people.

       

References

(n.d.). Retrieved March 26, 2017, from philosimply: http://www.philosimply.com/philosopher/bentham-jeremy

(2016, December). Retrieved March 24, 2017, from theatlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12

Butler-Bowdon, T. (2013). 50 Philosophy Classics: Thinking, Being, Acting, Seeing. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Curato, N. (2016, December 27). Philippines'War vs. Drugs: It has been bloody. Retrieved March 29, 2017, from Rappler: www.rappler.com

Ganesan, S. J. (2014, july 29). Retrieved March 27, 2017, from philosophypages: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5q.htm

K, H. (2013, February 6). Utilitarianism vs. Kantian Ethics. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from iep.utm.edu: http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/>

Kantian vs Utilitarian Ethics of Euthanasia. (2010, April). Retrieved from wpp4dying.blogspot: http://wp4dying.blogspot.com/2010/04/kantian-vs-utilitarian-ethics-of.html

Lores, E. (2016, September 18). The (Im)moral Justifictions of Duterte's Anti-drug War. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from joeam.com: https://joeam.com/2016/09/18/the-immoral-justifications-of-dutertes-anti-drug-war/

McCormick, M. (2001, December 10). Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics. (Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyWeb)

Press, A. (2016, July 13). Retrieved March 27, 2017, from asianjournal: http://asianjournal.com/editorial/war-on-drugs/

Romero, A. (2016, August 24). Duterte's drug war lowered crime rate, Palace says. Retrieved from philstar: http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/08/14/1613405/dutertes-drug-war-lowered-crime-rate-palace-says

Santos, J. A. (2016, August 10). PH " war on drugs'should draw lessons from other countries. Retrieved March 24, 2017, from rappler: www.rappler.com

Wolff, R. P. (2012). About Philosophy. Massachusetts: Pearson.