Public Law Studies Quarterly

Utilitarianism and the Debate between Metaphysics and Reality; a Reflection on the Concept of Right

Document Type : Article

Authors

Ommolbanin Mohammadinejad 1
Mahdi Shahabi 2
Seyed Mohammad Sadegh Ahmadi 3
Mohammadsharif Shahi 4

1 Ph.D. Student in Public Law, Department of Public and International Law, Islamic Azad ‎University, Isfahan Branch, Isfahan, Iran‎

2 Associate Prof, Department of Law, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University ‎of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

3 Associate Prof., Department of Public Law, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan Branch (Khorasgan), Isfahan, Iran

4 Assistant Prof., Department of Public Law, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan Branch (Khorasgan), Isfahan, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2021.311558.2589
Abstract
legal modernity as a value-oriented framework considered the concept of "right" as an abstract and metaphysical concept in the eighteenth century. At the same time, utilitarian theory welcomed the method of empirical observation in legal analysis, and considering the socio-economic functions of right emerged as an independent theory and have challenged how metaphysics interacts with reality. The present study seeks to investigate the relationship between metaphysics and reality and the nature of the concept of right from the perspective of utilitarianism theory. The principle of "achieving the greatest welfare for the greatest number" in utilitarian school of thought can challenge the concept of right drastically. It seems that utilitarianism authorizes sacrificing individuals and their interests (rights derived from the theory of modern natural law) as a necessity for greater happiness and welfare. Further investigation revealed that the theory rejects the subjectivism that exists in modern natural law; in other words, in examining the concept of right, it simply does not reflect the precedence of metaphysics over reality and, therefore, can be consistent with a typical impression of the concept of "right". 

Keywords

Right
utility
utilitarianism
modern natural law
metaphysics
reality
Subjects

  1. English

    A( Books

    1. Bentham, J. (1996). An Introduction to The Principles of Morals And Legislation. J.H.Burns,H.L.A.Hart , F. Rosen (eds.),Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.
    2. Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
    3. Driver, J. (2012) Consequentialism. London: Routledge

    4.Eggleston, Ben And Miller, Dale E (2014).The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism,Cambridge,Cambridge University Press.

    1. Hammond, P. (1982). Utilitarianism And Beyond. Cambridge,Cambridge University Press.
    2. Hart, H.L.A (1983). Essay in Jurisprudence And Philosophy, London, Oxford University Press.
    3. Lioyd, D. (1965). Introduction to Jurisprudence With Selected Texts. London, Stevens press.
    4. Mirrless, J.A (1982). Utilitarianism And Beyond. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    5. Mulgan, T. (2007). Understanding Utilitarianism. Cambridge,Cambridge University Press.
    6. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge,Harvard University Press.

    11.Regan, D.H (1980).Utilitarianism And Co-Operation. London, Oxford University Press.

    1. Tennant, C. (2014).Utilitarianism Explained And Exemplified in Moral And Political Government. Cambridge,Cambridge University Press.
    2. Timmermann, J. (2014).Kantian Ethics And Utilitarianism. Ben, Eggleston, And Dale E, Miller (eds.),Cambridge, Cambridge University press.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Caille, A. (1992). Utilitarianism And Anti-Utilitarianism. Thesis Eleven, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 33, 57-68.
    3. Eggleston, B. (2012). Utilitarianism,In:D.CallahanAndP. Singer (eds.).
    4. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, Elsevier Science, 452-458.
    5. Frey, R.G (1986).Utility And Rights. New Black Friars, 67(791), 247-248.
    6. Gurvitch, G. (1941).The Problem of Social Law. in Ethics, The University of Chicago Press, 52(1), 17-40.
    7. Habibi, D.A (2007). Human Rights And Politicized Human Rights: A Utilitarian Critique. Journal of Human Rights, 63-35.
    8. Habibi, D. A (2008).Two Utilitarian Approaches to Human Rights. Tenth Conference of The International Society for Utilitarian Studies, Kadish Center for Morality, Law and Public Affairs, UC Berkeley, 1-27.
    9. Kelly, P.j (1998). More on Bentham on Utility And Rights. Utilitas, 10, 165-167.
    10. Loughlin, M. (2005).The Functionalist Style in Public Law. in The University of Toronto Law Journal, 55(3), 361-403.
    11. Rosen, F (1998). Individual Sacrifice And The Greatest Happiness: Bentham on Utility And Rights. Utilitas, 10, 129-143.

     

    References in Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Chinhengo, A. (2015). Fundamentals of Legal Philosophy. (H.A.Nazhandynejad.Trans), Tehran: Khorsandi (In Persian).
    3. Jones, P. (2013). The Philosophy of Rights,(M.Zargosh & M.Hemayi.Trans). Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
    4. Rainbolt, G. (2015). The Concept of Right. (A.Mirzaee.Trans), Tehran: Rahenovin (In Persian).
    5. Raumond,V. (2010). Philosophy of Law. (F.Abyar,Trans), Tehran: Rokhdad no (In Persian).
    6. Raumond,V(2014). Philosophy of Law: A Very Short Introduction. (B.Ansari &M.Aghaee Togh .Trans(, Tehran: Jangale ,Javedanee (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Atrak, H. (2005). Moral Utilitarianism. Naghd va Nazar,10(1,2), 264-300 (In Persian).
    3. Avani, Sh. (2010).Is Utilitarianism The Same As Hedonism? Examining Bentham's And Mill's Views. The Quarterly Journal Of Taamolat Falsafi, 6, 7.32 (In Persian).
    4. Hart,H.L.E (2001). Positivism, Separation of Law And Ethics, (Gh.Zamani, Trans). Siyasi And Eghtesadi, 165-166, 74-85 (In Persian).
    5. Hoseini S.M. (2005). The Meaning And Nature of Utility From The Viewpoint of Utilitarians, The Quarterly Journal of Naghd Va Nazar,10(37-38), 310-320 (In Persian).
    6. Hoseini Soraki, M. (2011). Review And Critique of Moral Utilitarianism, The Quarterly Journal of The University of Qom,12(3), 87-125 (In Persian).
    7. Hosnein, M. (2003). Criticism of The Teleological Theories of Political Obligation. Hoghogh va Elahiyat, 2,3, 211-239 (In Persian).
    8. Jalili Moghadam, M. (2010). The Analysis of Bentham's Utilitarianism. Marefat, 159, 109-121 (In Persian).

    13 Javidi, M. (2015). Natural Right or Positivist Right; Redefining The Concept of right in Islamic Law. Hoghoghe Islami,16(2), 115-137 (In Persian).

    1. Mohamadrezaee, M., & Mohamadrezaee, M. (2014). Investigation of The Foundations of Utilitarian Ethical Philosophy in The organization (Comparison of The Utilitarian Ethical System with The Organization's Global Ethical Charter. Pazhoheshhaye Akhlaghi,5(1), 57-72 (In Persian).
    2. Pikherfe, Sh. (2013). Dangers of Goodwill: Explanation And Analysis of The Maximization Principle of Goodness in Normative Ethics And John Rawls's Criticism of it The Journal of Philosophy, 1, 125-144 (In Persian).
    3. Pikherfe, Sh. (2014). Various Types of Utilitarianism. The Quarterly Journal of Taamolate Falsafi of Zanjan University, 12, 35-69 (In Persian).
    4. Pikherfe, Sh. (2018). Incompatible Dualities of Mill: Measuring The Compatibility of Utilitarianism And Liberalism of J. S. Mill. The Quarterly Journal of Pazhoheshhaye Falsafi Kalami, 3(77), 133-156 (In Persian).
    5. Rahmani, Z (2011). Pro-Right Theories; Kant's Egalitarian Theory. The Quarterly Journal of Rahbord, 20(58), 203-216 (In Persian).
    6. Shafiei Sardasht, J. (2014). The Conflict Between Volitionists And Utilitarians Regarding The Concept of Right. The Quarterly Journal of Tahghighate Hoghoghi, 63, 209-246 (In Persian).
    7. Shahabi, M. (2010). Justification And Denial of The Concept of "Right", A Reflection on The Conflict or The Interaction of Reality And Value In The Legal System. Nameh-e- Mofid, Hoghoghe Tatbighi, 82, 43-60 (In Persian).
    8. Shahabi, M. (2011). The Process of "Socialization of Rights" And its Effect on The Legal System. The Law Quarterly Journal of Faculty of Law And political Sciences, 1, 259-278 (In Persian).
    9. Shahabi, M. (2013). From Modern Law to Postmodern Law; A Reflection on The Basics of Legal System Evolution. Tahghighate Hoghoghi, 61, 637-686 (In Persian).
    10. Shahabi, M., & Nikoee, M. (2012). Metaphysical Law, A Reflection on The Role of "Value" in The Process of Creating Legal Rule. The Journal of The Motaleate Hoghoghi of Shiraz University, 1, 103-134 (In Persian).
    11. Valdron, J. (2000). The theories of Rights, (Rasekh,M, Trans). Nameh Mofid , 1(21), 93-118 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 54, Issue 2 - Serial Number 38
Summer 2024
Spring 2024
Pages 1091-1111

  • Receive Date 14 October 2020
  • Revise Date 07 June 2021
  • Accept Date 27 June 2021

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us