Philosophical Thought
eISSN : 0000-0000
10.5
citescore
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years
10.5
impact factor
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
pubmed
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
Embase
Biosis Preview
Volume 4, Issue 2 (2024)
J Clin Care Skill 2024, 4(2): 91-107 |
Back to browse issues page
History
Received: 2024/01/3 | Accepted: 2024/06/23 | Published: 2024/07/18
Received: 2024/01/3 | Accepted: 2024/06/23 | Published: 2024/07/18
How to cite this article
Karimi S, Aghajani M. Human Interests from the Perspective of Rule Utilitarianism and Expediency Jurisprudence. J Clin Care Skill 2024; 4 (2) :91-107
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-6-73231-en.html
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-6-73231-en.html
1- Department of Moral Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran
2- Department of Fiqh and Usul, Qom Seminary, Qom, Iran
2- Department of Fiqh and Usul, Qom Seminary, Qom, Iran
Keywords:
| Abstract (HTML) (3125 Views)
Full-Text: (9 Views)
Introduction
Benefits and detriments are among the topics that have attracted thinkers throughout the ages. Utilitarianism, too, is a branch of consequentialism and is considered the most famous, holding that the consequences of an action determine its ethical status. From one perspective, utilitarianism has been divided into act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
This article presents a comparative analysis of the jurisprudence of public interest and rule utilitarianism. First, the topic of benefits and detriments, along with their types, is explained. In the second part, the topics of rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism are discussed, and act utilitarianism is critiqued. In the third part, a comparison is made between rule utilitarianism and the jurisprudence of public interest, and some differences are also mentioned.
It should be noted that despite the existing differences between these two schools of thought, they both agree that one should proceed based on rules; however, according to the jurisprudence of public interest, occasionally and rarely, rules are specified, which causes lower and less important benefits to be set aside in order to preserve higher and more important benefits. Moreover, such minor violations do not undermine the rule's generality, and the criterion for being a rule is based on customary usage, not on philosophical or rational precision [Al-Shatibi, 1997: 83-85]. However, in rule utilitarianism, the rule is absolute and will not be specified, even when violating it would yield the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.
This article discusses a comparative analysis between benefit-oriented jurisprudence (fiqh al-masalih) and rule utilitarianism. First, the topic of benefits and detriments, along with their types, is explained. The second part discusses rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism and critiques the latter. Then, in the third part, a comparison is made between rule utilitarianism and benefit-oriented jurisprudence, and some differences are also stated.
Human welfare from the perspective of the jurisprudence of public interest
Benefit (maslaha) is defined as acquiring benefit and preventing harm. The intent of the benefit is to protect the five objectives of Sharia [Qarzawi, 2017: 268]; preserving religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property.
Based on the degree of clarity and strength they have [Al-Risoni, 1997: 76], benefits are divided into three categories: First, essential benefits, meaning benefits that are necessary for preserving the benefits of religion and the world, such that without these benefits, the stability of worldly interests would be disrupted, and in the Hereafter, it would lead to the loss of salvation, which are: preserving religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property [Khalid Masoud, 2013: 254]. Second, complementary benefits, meaning benefits that are related to essential benefits in the second rank and are considered necessities [Qarzawi, 2017: 270]. Third, embellishment benefits, meaning benefits that are related to additional matters and issues, and contribute to adorning and beautifying the first and second categories of benefits [Qarzawi, 2017: 271].
In terms of validity and invalidity, benefits can be divided into three categories. The first category is benefits for which there is valid textual evidence. The second category is benefits for which there is textual evidence against them. The third category comprises benefits for which there is no evidence, either for or against, their validity, and are called unattested benefits (masalih mursalah) [Al-Ghazali, 2014: 274-275]
Benefits can also be categorized into three types based on their scope and comprehensiveness:
- First, general objectives (maqasid 'ammah), which refer to preserving the essentials such as religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property [Al-Risoni, 2010: 13-14; A Group of Writers, 2013a: 468].
- Second, specific objectives (maqasid khassah), which pertain to specific domains of legislation, such as the objectives of the Lawgiver in family laws, the objectives in financial transactions, the objectives of judging and testimony, the objectives of penalties, and so on [Al-Risoni, 2010: 14-15].
- Third, particular objectives (maqasid juz'iyyah), which are the objectives for each specific ruling of Sharia law that is prescribed for it, whether it is an obligation, prohibition, dislikedness, condition, recommendation, etc. [Al-Risoni, 2010: 15].
Human welfare from the perspective of rule utilitarianism
The second part discusses rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism, and it critiques act utilitarianism. Utilitarianism can be considered one of the most powerful and persuasive moral approaches [Driver, 2014].
The distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism emerged in the twentieth century [Brandt, 1959]. Act utilitarianism is a situational ethics that appeals directly to the principle of utility to determine which acts are moral and which are immoral. In other words, does my act in this particular situation lead to the greatest good for the greatest number or not [Frankena, 2013: 87]?
In rule utilitarianism, one must act and proceed according to the rule, and the rule should not make exceptions. Therefore, a teacher must give students the grades they deserve, not the grades they want [Shafer-Landau, 2022: 152]. According to rule utilitarianism, certain acts are absolutely prohibited, even when they sometimes lead to very good results. In other words, it makes no exceptions, and one must proceed according to the rule [Shafer-Landau, 2022: 153].
Rule utilitarianism is closer to our common moral sense and intuitions, although act utilitarianism is simpler. In contrast, act utilitarianism decides on a choice based on particular situations [Harsanyi, 1985: 117]. Negative utilitarianism was first proposed by Ninian Smart, where minimizing avoidable suffering replaces maximizing the greatest happiness [Acton & Watkins, 1963: 83]. Based on negative utilitarianism, avoiding pain and suffering is considered more important than attaining happiness and well-being [Warburton, 1999: 52].
In addition to these points, some scholars, including Ninian Smart, have critiqued Popper's theory. Smart presents counterexamples to negative utilitarianism. For instance, if a ruler could destroy all humans within a few seconds using a weapon at their disposal, and it is known that before their destruction, some of these humans would naturally suffer pain and torment [Smart, 1958: 542].
Alongside negative utilitarianism, the concept of preventing harm takes precedence over acquiring benefits is discussed. Preventing and removing harms is prioritized over acquiring benefits [A Group of Writers, 2013b: 143]. The intent of this principle is that if both harms and benefits result from something simultaneously, the aspect of harm takes precedence in terms of consideration and importance over the aspect of benefit [A Group of Writers, 2013b: 144].
Akhund Khurasani, the author of Kifayah, mentions three reasons for the precedence of prohibition over obligation in the chapter on this topic and raises objections to all three reasons. The first reason is that prohibition is more effective at indicating obligation [Al-Khurasani, 2022: 206]. The second reason is that preventing harm takes precedence over acquiring benefit. The author of Kifayah objects to giving this principle absolute precedence and believes that the opposite of this principle may be true, as is stated in some cases when comparing committing prohibited acts or omitting obligations [Al-Khurasani, 2022: 208]. The third reason given by the author of Al-Kifayah is induction [Al-Khurasani, 2022: 209].
Therefore, the principle of preventing harm takes precedence over acquiring benefits shares similarities with the foundation of negative utilitarianism, and in both cases, the aspect of harm and negation takes precedence.
The comparison of rule utilitarianism with the jurisprudence of public interest
The third part of the article compares the two theories of rule utilitarianism and benefit-oriented jurisprudence (fiqh al-masalih) and outlines the differences between these two schools of thought.
According to Ghazali, unattested benefits (masalih mursalah) for which there is no textual evidence are accepted with three conditions: necessity, certainty, and universality. It is necessary because it entails preserving life, which is one of the five essential objectives. It is certain because it is clearly certain that this method will protect the lives of Muslims. It is universal because it considers the entire Islamic community, not just a part of it [Khalid Masoud, 2013: 182-183].
In some cases, rules may be exceptional. One of those cases is sacrificing a lower benefit to preserve a higher benefit. In benefit-oriented jurisprudence, a person is permitted to kill Muslim human shields to preserve the lives of more people and eliminate disbelievers, with certain conditions. In fact, human life is sacred.
However, in this rare and exceptional case, to preserve more human lives and eliminate disbelievers, and with the conditions stated by Ghazali, such as necessity, certainty, and universality, it is permissible to kill those who have become human shields.
According to rule utilitarianism, one must act and proceed according to the rules, and even in cases where acting against the rule may yield a good result, one should not violate the rule, as rules do not make exceptions. Therefore, rule utilitarianism differs from benefit-oriented jurisprudence.
In the final part of the article, some differences between the two schools of thought are stated. Al-Bouti also identifies three prominent characteristics of benefit from the perspective of Islamic scholars and Islamic law, compared with some Western schools of thought, including utilitarianism, that also serve as distinctions between these two schools. First, the temporal criteria for benefit according to utilitarians are limited to this worldly (secular) life. Second, the value of benefit is determined by the value of material pleasure. Third, the validity of religion is subordinate to worldly benefit, and worldly benefit takes priority [Al-Bouti, 2018: 30-44].
Conclusion
The jurisprudence of public interest and rule utilitarianism differ in their frameworks and methods. Moral rules are considered rules; truthfulness is a moral rule. According to utilitarianism, one must always tell the truth, even if lying sometimes leads to a better outcome. This statement is also close to Al-Shatibi's view in Al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shari'ah, where he believes that violating a rule in specific individual cases does not undermine that general rule.
Al-Ghazali also considers the criteria of necessity, certainty, and universality to validate public interests (al-masalih al-mursalah). Therefore, in addition to the existence of rules and observing rules in juristic rules and the jurisprudence of public interest, there may be exceptions to these rules in some cases. Furthermore, the principle of prioritizing preventing harm over attracting benefit was examined in relation to negative utilitarianism. After explaining each of them, a comparison was made between the two, and objections were raised against both, which are important in their place. The aforementioned principle was re-evaluated in light of negative utilitarianism. The temporal criteria of public interest, the material and spiritual nature of interests, and the consideration or disregard for religion and otherworldly interests are among the differences between utilitarianism and the jurisprudence of public interest.
Benefits and detriments are among the topics that have attracted thinkers throughout the ages. Utilitarianism, too, is a branch of consequentialism and is considered the most famous, holding that the consequences of an action determine its ethical status. From one perspective, utilitarianism has been divided into act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
This article presents a comparative analysis of the jurisprudence of public interest and rule utilitarianism. First, the topic of benefits and detriments, along with their types, is explained. In the second part, the topics of rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism are discussed, and act utilitarianism is critiqued. In the third part, a comparison is made between rule utilitarianism and the jurisprudence of public interest, and some differences are also mentioned.
It should be noted that despite the existing differences between these two schools of thought, they both agree that one should proceed based on rules; however, according to the jurisprudence of public interest, occasionally and rarely, rules are specified, which causes lower and less important benefits to be set aside in order to preserve higher and more important benefits. Moreover, such minor violations do not undermine the rule's generality, and the criterion for being a rule is based on customary usage, not on philosophical or rational precision [Al-Shatibi, 1997: 83-85]. However, in rule utilitarianism, the rule is absolute and will not be specified, even when violating it would yield the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.
This article discusses a comparative analysis between benefit-oriented jurisprudence (fiqh al-masalih) and rule utilitarianism. First, the topic of benefits and detriments, along with their types, is explained. The second part discusses rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism and critiques the latter. Then, in the third part, a comparison is made between rule utilitarianism and benefit-oriented jurisprudence, and some differences are also stated.
Human welfare from the perspective of the jurisprudence of public interest
Benefit (maslaha) is defined as acquiring benefit and preventing harm. The intent of the benefit is to protect the five objectives of Sharia [Qarzawi, 2017: 268]; preserving religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property.
Based on the degree of clarity and strength they have [Al-Risoni, 1997: 76], benefits are divided into three categories: First, essential benefits, meaning benefits that are necessary for preserving the benefits of religion and the world, such that without these benefits, the stability of worldly interests would be disrupted, and in the Hereafter, it would lead to the loss of salvation, which are: preserving religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property [Khalid Masoud, 2013: 254]. Second, complementary benefits, meaning benefits that are related to essential benefits in the second rank and are considered necessities [Qarzawi, 2017: 270]. Third, embellishment benefits, meaning benefits that are related to additional matters and issues, and contribute to adorning and beautifying the first and second categories of benefits [Qarzawi, 2017: 271].
In terms of validity and invalidity, benefits can be divided into three categories. The first category is benefits for which there is valid textual evidence. The second category is benefits for which there is textual evidence against them. The third category comprises benefits for which there is no evidence, either for or against, their validity, and are called unattested benefits (masalih mursalah) [Al-Ghazali, 2014: 274-275]
Benefits can also be categorized into three types based on their scope and comprehensiveness:
- First, general objectives (maqasid 'ammah), which refer to preserving the essentials such as religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property [Al-Risoni, 2010: 13-14; A Group of Writers, 2013a: 468].
- Second, specific objectives (maqasid khassah), which pertain to specific domains of legislation, such as the objectives of the Lawgiver in family laws, the objectives in financial transactions, the objectives of judging and testimony, the objectives of penalties, and so on [Al-Risoni, 2010: 14-15].
- Third, particular objectives (maqasid juz'iyyah), which are the objectives for each specific ruling of Sharia law that is prescribed for it, whether it is an obligation, prohibition, dislikedness, condition, recommendation, etc. [Al-Risoni, 2010: 15].
Human welfare from the perspective of rule utilitarianism
The second part discusses rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism, and it critiques act utilitarianism. Utilitarianism can be considered one of the most powerful and persuasive moral approaches [Driver, 2014].
The distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism emerged in the twentieth century [Brandt, 1959]. Act utilitarianism is a situational ethics that appeals directly to the principle of utility to determine which acts are moral and which are immoral. In other words, does my act in this particular situation lead to the greatest good for the greatest number or not [Frankena, 2013: 87]?
In rule utilitarianism, one must act and proceed according to the rule, and the rule should not make exceptions. Therefore, a teacher must give students the grades they deserve, not the grades they want [Shafer-Landau, 2022: 152]. According to rule utilitarianism, certain acts are absolutely prohibited, even when they sometimes lead to very good results. In other words, it makes no exceptions, and one must proceed according to the rule [Shafer-Landau, 2022: 153].
Rule utilitarianism is closer to our common moral sense and intuitions, although act utilitarianism is simpler. In contrast, act utilitarianism decides on a choice based on particular situations [Harsanyi, 1985: 117]. Negative utilitarianism was first proposed by Ninian Smart, where minimizing avoidable suffering replaces maximizing the greatest happiness [Acton & Watkins, 1963: 83]. Based on negative utilitarianism, avoiding pain and suffering is considered more important than attaining happiness and well-being [Warburton, 1999: 52].
In addition to these points, some scholars, including Ninian Smart, have critiqued Popper's theory. Smart presents counterexamples to negative utilitarianism. For instance, if a ruler could destroy all humans within a few seconds using a weapon at their disposal, and it is known that before their destruction, some of these humans would naturally suffer pain and torment [Smart, 1958: 542].
Alongside negative utilitarianism, the concept of preventing harm takes precedence over acquiring benefits is discussed. Preventing and removing harms is prioritized over acquiring benefits [A Group of Writers, 2013b: 143]. The intent of this principle is that if both harms and benefits result from something simultaneously, the aspect of harm takes precedence in terms of consideration and importance over the aspect of benefit [A Group of Writers, 2013b: 144].
Akhund Khurasani, the author of Kifayah, mentions three reasons for the precedence of prohibition over obligation in the chapter on this topic and raises objections to all three reasons. The first reason is that prohibition is more effective at indicating obligation [Al-Khurasani, 2022: 206]. The second reason is that preventing harm takes precedence over acquiring benefit. The author of Kifayah objects to giving this principle absolute precedence and believes that the opposite of this principle may be true, as is stated in some cases when comparing committing prohibited acts or omitting obligations [Al-Khurasani, 2022: 208]. The third reason given by the author of Al-Kifayah is induction [Al-Khurasani, 2022: 209].
Therefore, the principle of preventing harm takes precedence over acquiring benefits shares similarities with the foundation of negative utilitarianism, and in both cases, the aspect of harm and negation takes precedence.
The comparison of rule utilitarianism with the jurisprudence of public interest
The third part of the article compares the two theories of rule utilitarianism and benefit-oriented jurisprudence (fiqh al-masalih) and outlines the differences between these two schools of thought.
According to Ghazali, unattested benefits (masalih mursalah) for which there is no textual evidence are accepted with three conditions: necessity, certainty, and universality. It is necessary because it entails preserving life, which is one of the five essential objectives. It is certain because it is clearly certain that this method will protect the lives of Muslims. It is universal because it considers the entire Islamic community, not just a part of it [Khalid Masoud, 2013: 182-183].
In some cases, rules may be exceptional. One of those cases is sacrificing a lower benefit to preserve a higher benefit. In benefit-oriented jurisprudence, a person is permitted to kill Muslim human shields to preserve the lives of more people and eliminate disbelievers, with certain conditions. In fact, human life is sacred.
However, in this rare and exceptional case, to preserve more human lives and eliminate disbelievers, and with the conditions stated by Ghazali, such as necessity, certainty, and universality, it is permissible to kill those who have become human shields.
According to rule utilitarianism, one must act and proceed according to the rules, and even in cases where acting against the rule may yield a good result, one should not violate the rule, as rules do not make exceptions. Therefore, rule utilitarianism differs from benefit-oriented jurisprudence.
In the final part of the article, some differences between the two schools of thought are stated. Al-Bouti also identifies three prominent characteristics of benefit from the perspective of Islamic scholars and Islamic law, compared with some Western schools of thought, including utilitarianism, that also serve as distinctions between these two schools. First, the temporal criteria for benefit according to utilitarians are limited to this worldly (secular) life. Second, the value of benefit is determined by the value of material pleasure. Third, the validity of religion is subordinate to worldly benefit, and worldly benefit takes priority [Al-Bouti, 2018: 30-44].
Conclusion
The jurisprudence of public interest and rule utilitarianism differ in their frameworks and methods. Moral rules are considered rules; truthfulness is a moral rule. According to utilitarianism, one must always tell the truth, even if lying sometimes leads to a better outcome. This statement is also close to Al-Shatibi's view in Al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shari'ah, where he believes that violating a rule in specific individual cases does not undermine that general rule.
Al-Ghazali also considers the criteria of necessity, certainty, and universality to validate public interests (al-masalih al-mursalah). Therefore, in addition to the existence of rules and observing rules in juristic rules and the jurisprudence of public interest, there may be exceptions to these rules in some cases. Furthermore, the principle of prioritizing preventing harm over attracting benefit was examined in relation to negative utilitarianism. After explaining each of them, a comparison was made between the two, and objections were raised against both, which are important in their place. The aforementioned principle was re-evaluated in light of negative utilitarianism. The temporal criteria of public interest, the material and spiritual nature of interests, and the consideration or disregard for religion and otherworldly interests are among the differences between utilitarianism and the jurisprudence of public interest.