itarian's want the punishment to be chosen for its benefits. Sober uses the “Lonesome Stranger” as an example of who should be punished for a crime of murder. According to Utilitarianism, there is no absolute requirement that the guilty must be punished and innocent may be as well. They feel as if what should be done depends on which course of action will maximize happiness. I become a little confused at this point, because I have very high morals, and I think that it is morally wrong to punish the innocent. Further on in the text, Sober distinguishes between rule utilitarianism, and act utilitarianism. There are two alternatives to the “Lonesome Stranger” example. 1) Punish the innocent when convenient and 2) Never punish the innocent. Rule utilitarian's will argue that #2 has the better consequences. Why is #2 better than #1? I think that if people generally believe that #1 is the policy that the government follows, a great deal of unhappiness will be produced. Not to mention that the example that would be set would not be a very positive one. Note that an act utilitarian will choose alternative #1.Above I mentioned the word moral. The Oxford Desk Dictionary defines “moral” as, 1)“concerned with the distinction between right and wrong”, and 2) “concerned with accepted rules and standards of human behavior.” How does a utilitarian feel about what is right vs. what is wrong? Sober uses another example that I shall modify a little. If I am studying to be a research scientist, and I get offered a job working with animals. In order to study their systems completely, I have to kill the animals, “in the name of science”. Now, I feel that it is wrong to kill any defenseless creature, but if I do not, someone else will. A utilitarian would say that it makes no difference morally speaking, the net consequences are the same. I feel though that it does make a difference. If ...
