What makes an action right · Quiz question 27/35
The Magistrate and the Mob (Scapegoat Case)
Frame one innocent person and a riot that would kill dozens is avoided. The classic case against utilitarianism, where it came from, and the debate.
A town is about to riot because the culprit of a crime hasn't been found. If the judge frames and punishes an innocent person, the riot stops and dozens of lives are saved.
The judge shouldn't do it.
In her 1967 paper, Philippa Foot contrasted the trolley with a judge facing rioters who threaten bloody revenge on part of the community unless a culprit is produced — the judge could execute an innocent person to stop it. Australian philosopher H. J. McCloskey, in a 1957 paper, used a sheriff who frames an innocent man to prevent a race riot to criticize utilitarianism. It's often called "the sheriff case."
This question is where consequentialism and justice collide head-on. On outcomes alone, one wrongful punishment beats dozens of deaths. But most people feel the judge must not do it: punishment should answer guilt, and punishing the innocent is unjust whatever the results.
In Utilitarianism: For and Against, J. J. C. Smart conceded that a utilitarian might have to accept uncomfortable conclusions in cases like this. In the same book, Bernard Williams argued utilitarianism ignores the agent's "integrity." In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls said utilitarianism "does not take seriously the distinction between persons" — cases like this show justice can't be reduced to the total good.
Punishing the innocent is unjust regardless of outcome. Individuals aren't tools for the greater good.
Key names: Kant, John Rawls, Robert NozickAdding up outcomes erases a moral fact: who is doing the deed.
Key names: Bernard WilliamsFactor in the risk of exposure and collapsing trust in courts, and usually the answer is no — but if the outcome truly is better, you have to accept it.
Key names: J. J. C. Smart, Jeremy Bentham's principle