| If our goal is deterrence, or detention, each of which may protect against crime, than we may as well hang thieves, or lock up grave felons and throw away the key. We do not do these things precisely because they offend our sense of justice. They are too severe. When we look for proportional penalties, we are looking for not only something severe enough, but also for something not too severe. Guided by the "good of society", we may visit all sorts of outrages upon the offenders. Leave aside cosmic morality: we are trying to construct a world which is meaningful and satisfying to human beings. That means that some things have to be valued more or less for their own sake, and not in a utilitarian fashion. What is the utilitarian standard? The greatest good for the greatest number. But what is that social good? After all, if I have a fascist model of society, where man derives his identity through service to the state, the greatest good for the greatest number would involve totalitarian mobilization, to bring meaning to the citizens lives. If I have a communist model of society, then it may be necessary to create a vanguard party to represent the objective interests of the working class and build socialism, so that one day, all men may live in classless harmony. If I have a Social Darwinist model of society, the sacrifice of the weak and indigent may be the best way of attaining the greatest good for the greatest number. And so forth. I find utilitarian paradigms at best shallow, at worst a route to evil....... |
