Genocide Is Morally Correct

 According to the route definition of the “Greatest Happiness Principle” that we received in class, it states that “acts are morally good in as much as they produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.”

 This definition of morally good that John Stuart Mills is working with conceptually makes sense, but has inherent flaws. His entire concept works with producing the greatest amount of happiness for the most people. This can be used against minorities. For the two million Armenians in Turkey during World War I, clearly being deported and massacred would not be filed under “good”. However, if a large majority of the Ottoman Empire's 21 million people felt strongly that they would be happier by removing the Armenians. It would be good. If only three million felt this way and the rest were indifferent it would still be producing the greatest amount of good.

Genocide is not morally right. Much like lying isn't morally right. However, this principle operates under creating the most happiness, and what's more determining what is morally right based on that. Minorities are not protected by that. If we enslave this group, we'll be happy says the majority. If we persecute this group and marginalize the roles they can play in society we'll be happy says the majority. This religion scares us says the majority. Let's have them killed.

 All of these actions would be considered morally good under this principle. That is clearly a faulty principle on which to determine what is morally good. As a way to work through the world it makes coherent sense, but it leaves out what happens to the people who aren't made happy by these choices. What's more it dehumanizes them and says that there experiences and pains are inconsequential, because everyone else is happy.