Applied Utilitarianism

Crime and Punishment
As utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of normative ethics, it focuses on the consequences punishment would have on both the criminals and the victims. So, to calculate what the appropriate utilitarian response is to crime and punishment, we have to take into account the severity of the original crime and the effects of the subsequent punishment. Utilitarianism argues that punishment must be proportionate to the crime. There are five different factors we particularly need to focus on when considering punishment in response to crime: With regard to the above points, some factors must be prioritised above others. For example, the concept of retribution does not seem to produce as much pleasure as pain, whereas the concept of deterrence seems to lead to greater pleasure for society as a whole. Rehabilitation seems to lead to more happiness for everyone, but may not be proportionate to the crime committed. Deterrence and prevention appear to make society happier in general but also need to be proportionate, for example, handing out a fine to someone who has littered, rather than cutting their hand off.
 * 1) Rehabilitation
 * 2) Deterrence
 * 3) Prevention
 * 4) Retribution

Rule utilitarians would argue that laws must be obeyed at all times, whereas act utilitarians would judge each case on its details. There is debate on whether the death penalty is utilitarian or not, as though capital punishment can be proportionate it does not appear to be a form of rehabilitation.

Treatment of Animals
Applying utilitarianism to the issue of how to treat animals rests on whether we accept Singer's argument that as both humans and animals possess sentience, and so the suffering and happiness of animals should be taken into account when discussing how we should treat animals.