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”.
"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.