If surveillance results in fear from the majority of the public, will Utilitarianism reject surveillance of the public for security reasons? I'm assuming this because Utilitarianism calls an action moral or right if it increases happiness for the majority of those involved. If surveillance doesn't increase happiness of the public, then it would be immoral. Right?
2
-
You might want to check philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24619/…– Alexander S KingCommented Dec 3, 2015 at 23:11
-
Jeremy Bentham's The Theory of Legislation is a good introduction to the principles of Utilitarianism. Richard Hildreth translated it into English in 1864, and it was republished by Harcourt, Brace in 1931. Useful excerpts are on pages 433 - 459 of Volume II of the Third Edition of Columbia University Press' Introduction to Contemporary Civilization in the West.– JasperCommented Dec 4, 2015 at 3:34
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
According to utilitarism your last implication is right "If surveillance doesn't increase happiness of the public, then it would be immoral."
But the problem is to determine which kinds of surveillance are to be considered and which additional effects - possibly increasing security - also result from surveillance.
Not until answering these questions one can decide, whether surveillance should be terminated or continued.
answered Dec 3, 2015 at 22:38
-
I'm looking at online surveillance. If online surveillance is not found to actually increase security and if it results in public fear and distrust, Utilitarianism would say it's immoral, right? Commented Dec 3, 2015 at 22:40
-
1Online surveillance is a special case of surveillance. I tried to answer the general case, hence the special case is included. Commented Dec 3, 2015 at 22:42
You used the happiness version of utility in your question. There are other interpretations of utility which involve the greater good, regardless of happiness - remember that those two are not necessarily the same.
To answer your question you would have to know is the public happy about the increased surveillance or not? If they are, then the increased surveillance is moral, if not then it isn't.
If you had chosen the interpretation of utility which involves the greater good, then the answer would change. One could then argue that increased surveillance is moral regardless of whether the public is happy about it or not, since the public doesn't always know what is good for them.
answered Dec 3, 2015 at 23:00
-
2“…is the public happy about the increased surveillance or not? If they are, then the increased surveillance is moral, if not then it isn't.” Not necessarily, even under the interpretation happiness=utility. The public might be unhappy about surveillance, but it might be preventing something (e.g. terrorism) that would have made them even more unhappy, which would make it moral from the happiness-maximising point of view. The key question is not “are people happy with it”, but “are people happier with it than they would be without it”. Commented Dec 3, 2015 at 23:23
One of the four categories of Good/Harm in Utilitarianism is religious. Bentham refers to religion both as a category of good/harm, and as an avenue by which society can encourage individuals to behave in good ways instead of harmful ways.
Bentham lived in a Christian society. Christian doctrine includes two kinds of continual surveillance on every individual:
- The individual's own conscience.
- An omniscient, omnipresent God who is the ultimate judge.
Therefore, the alleged emotional harm (from even omnipresent surveillance) that the original poster asks about is not a problem in Utilitarianism. Instead, it takes it for granted as an influence on individuals' thoughts and behavior.
