Self-interest as the Golden Rule
Teleology considers human nature a positive and self-interested. Human has inherent tendency to act in his/her self-interest. Whatever brings benefits to human and maximizes self-interest, human goes by that action. It is this consideration which becomes basis for the two cardinal principles of utilitarian philosophy.
The two cardinal principles
1. Pleasure-pain principle
2. The greatest good to greatest number principle
| Example | Utilitarian Goal | Ethical Trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 lockdown | Save maximum lives | Infringed livelihoods & movement |
| Hiroshima bombing | End war, save future lives | High civilian casualties |
| Free vaccine drive | Mass immunity, public health | Resource strain |
| Aadhaar-linked DBT | Efficient delivery to millions | Some exclusion errors |
| One-child policy | Resource balance for future generations | Individual rights violated |
| Road camera fines | Safer roads for all | Personal freedom limited |
| Organ donation | Maximize lives saved | Grief vs saving lives |
| Animal culling in epidemics | Prevent human outbreaks | Animal rights sacrificed |
Jeremy Bentham
-
- “Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end.”
“The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.”
“Pain and pleasure govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think.”
- “Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end.”
John Stuart Mill
-
- “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction.”
- “The worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it.
- “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way.”
| Means - Kant | Ends - Bentham and Mill |
|---|---|
| ● For Kant, the inherent quality of human action should itself be right. Human action should not be right on the basis of its outcome. ● Kantian deontology describes certain actions as bad, independent of the person performing the action. ● Example: It is wrong for a person to kill another person. Therefore, someone who kills another person has done a bad thing whether they have good or bad character traits doesn't matter, because the action itself is not moral. | ● For Bentham, human action rightness/ wrongness is judged on the basis of the consequence/outcome of the action. If the end is well, all is well. ● Utilitarianism considers human nature as self-interested and it’s inclined towards maximizing utility of human action on the basis of pleasure pain principle and greatest good to greatest number. ● Example: Self-defense. If a woman is attacked by a man with a gun and is about to be killed, but she some how gets the gun away from the man and shoots him to save herself, it will not be said that she is a bad person or that what she did was wrong. It will most likely be said that she is brave and that she did what was right (given the situation). |
John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle is one of the most influential ideas in Western political philosophy. Introduced in his 1859 essay On Liberty, it serves as the ultimate benchmark for determining the boundary between individual freedom and state control.
In Mill’s own words:
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
The Harm Principle is actively invoked today to navigate complex legal and ethical dilemmas:
| Contemporary Issue | The Dilemma | How the Harm Principle Solves It |
|---|---|---|
| Free Speech vs. Hate Speech | Should the state ban offensive books, stand-up comedy, or controversial political views? | Protect the speech unless it causes direct harm. Mere offense or dislike is not enough to censor someone. However, speech that directly incites imminent physical violence or defamation passes the threshold into "other-regarding" harm and can be restricted. |
| Public Health Mandates | Can the government force citizens to wear masks, quarantine, or get vaccinated? | Yes, intervention is justified. While choosing your medical treatment is generally a self-regarding act, carrying a highly contagious deadly virus in public spaces directly risks infecting others. Your individual liberty ends where another person’s physical survival begins. |
| Substance Legalization | Should the state ban drugs, alcohol, or vaping? | A mixed case. If a person consumes alcohol quietly at home, it is a self-regardingact (even if it harms their liver). The state shouldn't ban it. However, the moment that person gets behind the wheel of a car (Drunk Driving), it becomes an other-regarding act that risks killing pedestrians, justifying severe state punishment. |
HARISH RANA CASE 2026
In August 2013, Harish Rana, then a 21-year-old BTech student, suffered a catastrophic head injury after falling from the fourth floor of his accommodation. The accident left him with a diffuse axonal injury, 100% quadriplegia (paralysis of all four limbs), and in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS).
He was kept alive solely through Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) administered via a surgically inserted Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube. Facing immense financial and emotional toll, his aging parents approached the courts to allow him to die with dignity.
The landmark Harish Rana case is a classic example of a hybrid ethical approach. The Supreme Court of India anchored its fundamental justification in Deontology, but it used Utilitarian reasoning to execute the final decision.
The Deontological Application (The Foundation)
Deontology is a rights-and-duty-based framework. It states that certain values are absolute and must be respected regardless of the consequences.
-
- The Concept applied: The Right to Autonomy and Human Dignity.
- How the Court used it: The Supreme Court based its entire ruling on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Life). The court maintained that “Life” does not mean mere animal existence or the mechanical pumping of a heart. A human being has an intrinsic right to a dignified life, and by extension, a right to a dignified death.
- The Kantian link: Keeping Harish Rana artificially attached to tubes for 13 years in a vegetative state, with zero chance of recovery, was viewed as violating his human dignity. It was treating his body merely as a biological machine to be kept running (a means), rather than respecting his intrinsic worth as a human being (an end).
The Utilitarian Application
Utilitarianism looks strictly at consequences, aiming to minimize overall pain and suffering and maximize well-being for the greatest number of people involved.
-
- The Concept applied:The Minimization of Futile Suffering.
- How the Court used it:In the “Best Interest” test, the court had to calculate the net happiness versus net suffering of continuing the treatment:
- For Harish:He was in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). He had zero capacity for pleasure, thoughts, or joy. Extending his life offered him zero utility.
- For the Parents:They were aging, financially drained, and living in perpetual emotional agony watching their son decay. Keeping him alive generated massive disutility (pain) for the family.
- Medical Futility:Spending medical resources and hospital beds on a 100% irreversible case reduces the resources available to patients who can be saved (a utilitarian loss for society).
- The Verdict:By withdrawing the life support, the court eliminated a source of immense, prolonged, and futile suffering, thereby achieving a better utilitarian outcome for the family and society.
| Aspect | Principle Applied | Judicial Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| The "Why" (The core right) | Deontology | The absolute, non-negotiable Right to Die with Dignity under Article 21. |
| The "How" (The decision to stop) | Utilitarianism | A cost-benefit analysis proving that continuing futile medical care caused immense net suffering to the family with zero benefit to the patient. |
Conclusion:
The judgment proves that modern law cannot rely on just one philosophy. The Supreme Court used Deontology to establish the moral right (Dignity) and Utilitarianism to justify the practical action(withdrawing the feeding tube to end futile suffering).
Spread the Word
