Although utilitarianism may seem an attractive model for ensuring the well-being of society, a closer look at the Utilitarian arguments provided by the pioneer of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham reveal that in practice, this theory would destroy individual rights and freedoms. In fact, the tendency of Bentham's utilitarianism to ignore, or even disregard, individual affliction or minority suffering due to its short-sighted conception of happiness is another reason why it is detrimental to preservation of individual rights and freedoms. Although Mill's utilitarian approach accommodates individual rights more than Bentham's, it is still unable to reconcile respect for individual rights with the ultimate utilitarian goal of maximizing general happiness, despite the establishment of a hierarchy of lower and higher pleasures. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay Jeremy Bentham's endorsement of strengthening individual rights through legal institutions would be a misleading measure to gauge his consideration for natural rights. Bentham scorns natural rights, calling them “anarchic fallacies.” This is due to Bentham's belief that no realistic government can operate with the comprehensive scope of natural rights, therefore believing that rights are only "real" when they are legally and specifically documented in laws. However, the implementation of Bentham's utilitarianism would absolutely discredit this notion of rights, since the dominant principle of maximizing general happiness even at the expense of individual happiness would certainly not be able to enumerate the rights to which an individual can claim under a utilitarian government. The list can be long and varies on a case-by-case basis. Some proponents of utilitarianism may argue that few would object to torturing a prime terrorist suspect to extract valuable intelligence during a period of intense terror alert, but who would willingly give up today today its consent to the reestablishment of slavery with the aim of considerably reducing production. costs and giving the population more time to do what they want? Of course, we would oppose slavery today, because it is an aversion to us. But to be historically objective, we must recognize that not all societies have viewed slavery as a wrongful institution, and that supporters of slavery in the past have resorted to utilitarianism to make their point. view. How can a normative and moral theory like utilitarianism claim to promote happiness and pleasure, while accepting institutions like slavery? The distinction between the majority and the minority in society is also vague. If utilitarianism asserts that the preferences adopted by the majority are always the most optimal for maximizing happiness, then it will fail to reconcile this with the fact that African slaves in the West Indies once outnumbered white settlers in the 1990s. 1700; no African slave would have preferred to remain in bondage, so the majority preference in this case would be abolitionism. Yet that certainly didn’t happen. In cases like slavery, the happiness generated by utilitarianism probably has instantaneous value, but not permanent value, which can support general happiness in the long term. Our aversion to slavery today, and the reason it was abolished, is due to.