INTRODUCTION

On January 25, 2015, the 84th Special Action Force (SAF) conducted a police operation
at Tukanalipao, Mamasapano in Maguindanao. Also known as Oplan Exodus, it was intended to
serve an arrest warrant for Zulkifli Bin Hir or Marwan, a Malaysian terrorist and bomb-maker
who had a $5 million bounty on his head. This mission eventually led. to a clash between the
Philippine National Police's (PNP) SAF, on the one hand, and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom
Fighters (BIFF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on the other. Although the police
operation was "successful" because of the death of Marwan, the firefight that ensued claimed
sixty-seven lives including forty-four SAF troopers, eighteen MILF Fighters, and five civilians.
However, the relatively high number of SAF members killed in this operation caught the
attention of many including the Philippine media and the legislature.

In one of the Congress investigations that followed this tragic mission, then Senate
President Franklin Drilon and Senator Francis Escudero debated the public hearing of an audio
recording of an alleged conversation that attempted to cover up the massacre of the PNP-SAF
commandos. Drilon questioned the admissibility of these recordings as evidence under the Anti-
Wire Tapping Law whereas Escudero cited the legal brief of the Free Legal Assistance Group
(FLAG) arguing that the Anti-Wire Tapping Law protects only the recording and interception of
private communications. Drilon cited Section 4 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200) and
explained that "any communication or spoken word, or the existence. contents, substance,
purport, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained
obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation."
Senator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the Senate committee on public order and
dangerous drugs, argued otherwise. "Sinabi na ni Senator Drilon na ito daw ay illegal, na hindi
daw pwede, na ako daw ay pwedeng maging liable kung ito daw ay ipapakinig ko sa Senado, ako
naman, ano ba itong mga batas na ito?... Ang mga batas na ito ay para malaman natin ang
katotohanan at magkaroon tayo ng hustisya. Itong mga anti-wiretapping or mga recording na
ganito, kung hindi pwedeng ilabas sa publiko, pwede naming gawing basehan sa executive
session."

Senator Poe's response leads us to ask: Can the government infringe individual rights? If
it is morally permissible for the government to infringe individual rights, when can the
government do so? Does it become legitimate to sacrifice individual rights when considering the
greatest benefit for the greatest number of people?

This case exposes the aftermath of the Mamasapano incident and the Senate
investigations. The Senate inquiry proceedings raised questions on the possibility of wire-
tapping and the intrusion to one's right to privacy. While the 1987 Philippine Constitution does
protect one's right to private communication, it did provide some exemptions to its inviolability.
These exemptions include a lawful order of the court and/or issues involving public safety and
order. In fact, RA 4200 (or the Anti-Wire Tapping Law) and RA 9372 (or the Human Security
Act of 2007) both provided exemptions to the inviolability of right to privacy in instances of
treason, espionage, rebellion, and sedition. While this is certainly a legal issue, can it also
constitute a moral concern? By raising the distinction between moral and legal issues and
concerns, do you think that these two are different? To simplify things, let us put aside the
question of law and let us assume that you were asked to decide whether wiretapping is morally
permissible or not. On what instances is wiretapping morally permissible and on what instances
is it not morally permissible?

When considering the moral permissibility of wiretapping, we calculate the costs and
benefits of wiretapping. If we calculate the costs and benefits of our actions, then we are
considering an ethical theory that gives premium to the consequences of actions as the basis of
morality and as such is utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination of right behavior based on the usefulness of the action's consequences. This means
that pleasure is good and that the goodness of an action is determined by its usefulness. Putting
these ideas together, utilitarianism claims that one's actions and behavior are good inasmuch as
they are directed toward the experience of the greatest pleasure over pain for the greatest number
of persons.
Its root word is "utility" which refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one's
action and behavior. When we argue that wiretapping is permissible because doing so results in
better public safety, then we are arguing in a utilitarian way. It is utilitarian because we argue
that some individual rights can be sacrificed for the sake of the greater happiness of the many.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are the two foremost utilitarian
thinkers.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
Jeremy Bentham was born on February 15. 1748 in London, England. He was the teacher of
James Mill, father of John Stuart Mill. Bentham first wrote about the greatest happiness principle
of ethics and was known for a system of penal management called panoptic on. He was an
advocate of economic freedom, women's rights, and the separation of church and state, among
others. He was also an advocate of animal rights and the abolition of slavery, death penalty. and
corporal punishment for children. Bentham denied individual legal rights nor agreed with the
natural law. On his death on June 6, 1832, Bentham donated his corpse to the University College
London, where his auto-icon is in public display up to this day to serve as his memorial
Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of actions. This means that the
goodness or the badness of an action is based on whether it is useful in contributing to a specific
purpose for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This means that the
moral value of actions and decisions is based solely or greatly on the usefulness of their
consequences; it is the usefulness of results that determines whether the action or behavior is
good or bad.
While this is the case, not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian. For Bentham and Mill,
utility refers to a way of understanding the results of people's actions. Specifically, they are
interested on whether these actions contribute or not to the total amount of resulting happiness in
the world. The utilitarian value pleasure and happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions
is based on its promotion of happiness.
Bentham and Mill understand happiness as the experience of pleasure for the greatest number of
persons, even at the expense of some individual's right

THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

In the book an introduction to the principles of morals and legislation (1789), Jeremy Bentham
begins by arguing that our actions are governed by two” sovereign masters”’ which he calls
pleasure and pain. These “masters” are given to us by nature by help us determine what is good
or bad and what ought to do and not; they fasten our choices to their throne.

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It
is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On
the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other, the chain of causes and effects, are
fastened to their throne. They governed us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: Every
effort we can make to throw our subjection, will serve but demonstrate and confirm it. The
principle of utility recognizes his subjection and assumes it for the foundation of the system, the
object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity by the hands of reason and law.

Mill support Benthams principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as happiness and
consequently happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what makes people happy is intended to
pleasure and what makes us unhappy is the privation of pleasure. The things that produce
happiness and pleasure are good; whereas, those that produce unhappiness and pain are bad. Mill
explains.

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, utility or the greatest happiness principle.
Holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend
to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain;
by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure to give a clear view of moral standard set up
by the theory, much more requires to be said. In particular; what things in includes in the ideas of
pain and pleasure, and to extent, this is left an open question. But these supplementary
explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory desirable as ends; and all
desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable
either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as a means to promotion of pleasure and the
prevention of pain.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in Pentoville, London, United Kingdom. He was the
son of James mill, a friend and disciple of Jeremy Bentham. John Stuart mill was home-
schooled. He studied Greek at the age of three and Latin at the age of eight. He wrote a history of
roman history of roman law at age eleven, and suffered a nervous breakdown at the age of
twenty. He was married to Harriet Taylor after twenty-one years of relationship. His ethical
theory and his defense of utilitarian views are found in his long essay entitled utilitarianism
(1861) Mill died on May 8, 1873 in Avignon, France from erysipelas.

What Bentham identified as the moral prefer ability, Mill refers to as a theory of life. If we
consider, for example, what morals agents do and how they assess their action, then it so hard to
deny the pursuit for happiness and the avoidance of pain are not only important principles they
are in the fact the only principle in assessing in action morality. Why is it justifiable wiretap
private conversations in stances of treason, rebellion, espionage, and sedition? Why is it
preferable to alleviate poverty or eliminate criminality? Why is it noble to build a schools and
hospitals? Why is it good to improve the quality of life and like? Theirs is no answer than the
principle of utility, that is, to increase happiness and decrease pain.

In determining moral prefer ability of actions, Bentham provides a framework for evaluating
pleasure and pain commonly called felicific calculus. Felicific calculus is a common currency
framework that calculates the pleasure that some action can produce. In this framework, an
action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of pleasure; duration or length of the
experience of pleasure; certainty, uncertainty or the likelihood that pleasure will occur; and
propinquity, remoteness, or how soon there will be pleasure. Felicific calculus allows the
evaluation of all actions and their resultant pleasure. This means that actions are evaluated in the
single scales regardless of preferences and values.

Mill descent from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. For Mill utilitarianism cannot promote the
kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to any other animals. He thinks that there are higher
intellectual than lower base pleasure. We undermine ourselves if we only and primarily desire
sensuality; this is because we are capable of higher intellectual pleasurable goods. Human
pleasure are qualitatively different from animal pleasures.

Contrary to Bentham, Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An
excessive quantity of what is otherwise pleasurable might result in pain. For example, our
experience in excessive eating or exercising. Whereas eating the right amount of food can be
pleasurable, excessive eating may not be. The same is true when exercising.

In the most famous quote in Mill’s Utilitarianism

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only
know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides”.

PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent
alone and dependent from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of
how high intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest
number affected by the consequences of our actions.
Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. Its neither about our pleasure nor happiness
alone; it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not
constitute a moral good. If we are the only ones who are made happy by our actions, then we
cannot be morally good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure
more happiness for others.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone’s happiness, including our own, as
the standard by which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that utilitarianism is not at all
separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality of life for all persons.
Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the
greatest number. Consequently, utilitarianism maximizes the total amount of pleasure over
displeasure for the greatest number.
Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequences for the highest number of people.
It is not interested with the intention of the agent. Moral value cannot be discernible in the
intention or motivation of the person doing the act; it is based solely and exclusively to the
deference it makes on the world’s total amount of pleasure and pain. This lead us to question
utilitarianism’s take of moral rights. If actions are based only on the greatest number, is it
justifiable to let go of some rights for the sake of the benefits of the majority.

JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS

What is a right?
Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward society's pursuit for the
greatest happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a valid claim on society and are
justified by utility.
Mill expounds that the above mentioned rights referred are related to the interests that serve
general happiness. The right to due process, the right to free speech or religion, and others
are justified because they contribute to the general good. This means that society is made
happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing that their interests are protected and
that society (as a whole) defends it. Extending this concept to animals, they have rights because
of the effect of such principles on the sum total of happiness that follows as a consequence of
instituting and protecting their interests. It is not accidental, therefore, that utilitarian’s are also
the staunchest defenders of animal rights. A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles in as
much as they produce an overall happiness that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from
their implementation.
Utilitarian’s argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because the
category of rights is directly associated with the individual's most vital interests. All of these
rights are predicated on the person's right to life.
 We are treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected. Mill enumerates
different kinds of goods that he characterized as rights and are protected by law Mill understands
that legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject to me exceptions.
Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points out that
when legal rights are not morally justified in accordance to the greatest happiness principle, then
these rights need neither be observed, nor be respected. This is like saying that there are
instances when the law is not morally justified and, in this case, even objectionable.

Mill seems to be suggesting that it is morally permissible to not follow, even violate an
unjust law. The implication is that those who protest over political policies of a morally
objectionable government act in a morally obligatory way. While this is not always preferred.
Mill thinks that it is commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil
disobedience for the sake of promoting a higher moral good. At an instance of conflict between
moral and legal rights, Mill points out that moral rights take precedence over legal rights.
While it can be justified why others violate legal rights, it is an act of injustice to violate
an individual's moral rights. However, Mill seems to provide some extenuating circumstances in
which some moral rights can be overridden for the sake of the greater general happiness. Going
back to the case of wiretapping, it seems that one's right to privacy can be sacrificed for the sake
of the common good. This means that moral rights are only justifiable by considerations of
greater overall happiness. He qualifies moral rights in this way.

In this sense, the principle of utility can theoretically obligate us to steal, kill, and the
like. We say "theoretically" because this merely constitutes a thought experiment and need not be
actualized. Since what matters in the assessment of what we do is the resultant happiness, then
anything may be justified for the sake of producing the greatest happiness of the greatest number
of people.

While there is no such thing as a laudable and praiseworthy injustice, Mill appeals to the
utilitarian understanding of justice as an act justified by the greatest happiness principle. There is
no right to violate where utility is not served by the social protection of individual interests.
While he recognizes how utilitarian principles can sometimes obligate un to perform acts that
would regularly be understood as disregarding individual rights, he argues that this is only
possible if it is judged to produce more happiness than unhappiness.
In short, Mill's moral rights and considerations of justice are not absolute, but are only
justified by their consequences to promote the greatest good of the greatest number. With these
understanding of rights in place, Mill explains his understanding of justice and it is with this that
we end this section. For Mill, justice can be interpreted in terms of moral rights because justice
promotes the greater social good.

Summary
 Bentham and Mill see moral good as pleasure, not merely self-gratification, but also
the greatest happiness principle or the greatest happiness for the greatest number of
people. We are compelled to do whatever increases pleasure and decreases pain to the most
number of persons, counting each as one and none as more than one. In determining the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people, there is no distinction between Bentham and Mill.
Bentham suggests his felicific calculus, a framework for quantifying moral valuation. Mill
provides a criterion for comparative pleasures. He thinks that persons who experience two
different types of pleasures generally prefer higher intellectual pleasures to base sensual
ones.

Mill provides an adequate discourse on rights despite it being mistakenly argued to be the
weakness of utilitarianism. He argues that rights are socially protected interests that are justified
by their contribution to the greatest happiness principle. However, he also claims that in extreme
circumstances, respect for individual rights can be overridden to promote the better welfare
especially in circumstances of conflict valuation.