Rm Hare What Is Wrong With Slavery Analysis

The Evaluation of What Is Wrong with Slavery
In the paper what is wrong with slavery, R.M. Hare argues that, according to utilitarianism, slavery is evil and should be abolished in every society. He discusses the definition of slavery, and after that shows imaginary cases to illustrate his ideas. However, does his argument make a cogent case? Is there any exceptions to his argument? Can we find any conditions in which slavery may actually be reasonable and justified to exist, and bring benefits to the society? If there are exceptions, do these exceptions show that utilitarianism is faulty and problematic? Or does this mean that slavery, as a matter of fact, in some cases can be justified, even though almost everyone would agree that slavery

M. Hare’s argument, it can be seen that there exists some issues with utilitarianism. Or, simply apply utilitarianism to this world, and use utilitarianism code to make every decision is wrong since the code of utilitarianism loss consistency in real world. According to utilitarianism, the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility, or happiness. However, happiness is complex. It is generally acknowledged that people who have their physical and emotional needs satisfied and their human rights guaranteed are happy. But according to the discussions above, if to choose between meeting the basic needs and human rights, which one will make people happier? Or, based on the example above, a slave with abundant things to eat and a comfort bed to sleep, compared with a hobo with nothing to eat and nowhere to sleep, but has the freedom to do whatever he/she wants, who is happier? Probably slavery is a process of self-realization, which helps slaves find their personal value through their hard work. When making the evaluation of happiness, some people put more weight to human rights, while others make basic needs as their priority. People’s view towards happiness, or utility, differs, therefore it may be a little bit problematic to judge whether an action is moral or not by evaluating whether it will bring happiness to people. It may be less problematic to examine an issue with utilitarianism views if it is a personal issue, like to choose a job from

M. Hare, based on the utilitarianism theory of John Stuart Mill. The argument of R. M. Hare is examined, and exceptions in which utilitarianism actually condones slavery are proposed and analyzed. Slavery may means misery for slaves, but the abolition of slavery doesn’t necessarily mean happiness and well-being. In fact, the abolishment may lead the slaves to a more desperate state of being with little thing to eat and nowhere to sleep. In such case, it is basic needs versus human rights. The generally acknowledged choice may be to choose to satisfy basic needs over human rights. Therefore, according to the utilitarianism, which takes the action moral if it maximize the happiness of people, slavery is justified. And if the choice is human rights over basic needs, it is still not sure whether a slave whose freedom is deprived but whose basic needs are satisfied is happier, or a hobo who has freedom but who finds it hard to satisfy his/her physical needs is happier. The problem with utilitarianism is that people view happiness differently, and it is impossible to accurately quantify the happiness people are experiencing. Therefore, for utilitarianism there is no accurate criterion to make judgement on, and there will be a problem if we simply use the idea of utilitarianism to make any decisions in real