Scribd
Upload
367 views1 page

War On Drugs

The document discusses the ethics of President Duterte's "war on drugs" policy in the Philippines, which involved extrajudicial killings of suspected drug criminals and users. It raises the question of whether harming a smaller number is justified to prevent harm to a larger group, as per the utilitarian view. However, it argues that while killing criminals may lessen potential harm, extrajudicial killings of innocent civilians are morally wrong. Non-violent alternatives and rehabilitation programs that respect human rights and produce greater happiness for individuals and society should be pursued instead of killings.

Uploaded by

JOANNA MARIE FORGES
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
367 views1 page

War On Drugs

The document discusses the ethics of President Duterte's "war on drugs" policy in the Philippines, which involved extrajudicial killings of suspected drug criminals and users. It raises the question of whether harming a smaller number is justified to prevent harm to a larger group, as per the utilitarian view. However, it argues that while killing criminals may lessen potential harm, extrajudicial killings of innocent civilians are morally wrong. Non-violent alternatives and rehabilitation programs that respect human rights and produce greater happiness for individuals and society should be pursued instead of killings.

Uploaded by

JOANNA MARIE FORGES
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Consider the principle of utility, when the only way to prevent harm to the large number of

people is to harm a smaller number of people (like Duterte’s War on Drugs), is it always
permissible to harm a smaller number in order to prevent harm to a large number?

Killing has become a crucial part of the story of the Duterte's war against drugs  to eliminate
the public threat, and over 300 drug-related killings have been recorded in less than a month of
during the first month of his presidency. Police officers found guilty of killing inmates and
citizens while carrying out their duty will be pardoned, according to the former President
Duterte. A phrase commonly used by Duterte during this era, “shoot-to-kill” to those who
would resist endorsing “do-it-yourself arrests” to ordinary citizens has raised concerns to
human rights groups and foreign leaders as it apparently implies extrajudicial killings- in which
he acknowledged after. Which raises the question, is it justifiable to harm a smaller number to
prevent harm to a large number?

There are two parameters that are needed to be considered in this discussion, (1)
intentional killing of criminals, and (2) killing of innocent civilians. The utilitarianism theory
states that most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest
number, although it’s not that simple. There are two pioneers of the utilitarianism theory
namely Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham’s understanding of this principle simply
focuses on the quantity of happiness as a consequence of an action- therefore labeling
Bentham as an act utilitarian. Bentham’s perception of this principle does not take into
consideration the intention of an action. Therefore, it is justifiable to kill a drug addict as it is
morally right since it produced the most happiness and the least pain for the greatest number
of people. Mill’s version on the other hand gives light to the quality of happiness answering the
justification of punishment considering human’s liberty and rights. Mill specifically distinguished
the differences between what is objectively right and what is morally right. It asserts that an
action becomes objectively right if it increases happiness, but not necessarily morally
right. Going back to the first parameter, if the killing of criminals would relatively lessen the
potential harm brought to civilians, then it is objectively right as it would maximize happiness.
However, the inclusion of the second parameter which is also what we call as “extrajudicial
killings”, is morally wrong since it does not comply with social rules that are normally supported
by internal and external punishments and does not promote utility in general. Simply put, the
killing of humans may be objectively right, but it doesn’t mean that it is morally right. In terms
of the theory of objective rightness, Mill can be described as an act utilitarian; but, in terms of
the theory of moral obligation, he can be described as a rule utilitarian.

Punishments has always been the consequence for people who violates the law, but the act
of killing people for their crimes neglects the sanctity of life especially if innocent civilians are
involved. The government should seek alternative solutions in ending the war against drugs
without violence. If people were able to reform themselves with the help of government
institutions, it would not only produce happiness for the individual but also society as a whole.

You might also like