Share this comment
Cf. 'The Abusability Objection' at utilitarianism.net/obje…
"Consider a “ticking time bomb” scenario, where one supposedly can only prevent a nuclear detonation by illegally torturing a suspect. If millions of lives are on the line, the argument goes, we should accept that torture could be justified. But given the risk of abuse, we might …
Cf. 'The Abusability Objection' at utilitarianism.net/objections-to-utilitarianism/abusability/
"Consider a “ticking time bomb” scenario, where one supposedly can only prevent a nuclear detonation by illegally torturing a suspect. If millions of lives are on the line, the argument goes, we should accept that torture could be justified. But given the risk of abuse, we might also want anyone who commits torture to suffer strict legal sanctions. If millions of lives are really on the line, the agent should be willing to go to jail. If someone wants to torture others, but isn’t willing to go to jail for it, this raises serious questions about their moral integrity—and the likely consequences of letting them run loose. Accordingly, there’s no inconsistency in utilitarians holding both that (i) violating human rights could be justified in the most extreme circumstances, and yet (ii) anyone who violates human rights should be strictly held to account."
This isn't what's in dispute between consequentialists and deontologists.
There is no inconsistency, but I rarely see a utilitarian argument made in a way that incorporates this sort of accountability. Guess I need to keep reading! Thanks for the link.