A Utilitarian Approach to World Peace: Political Assassination

 

The average person in most Western countries will have heard of the Ten Commandments listed in the Christian Bible and would be able to name at least half of them. People on the street would probably recite “Thou shalt not steal” or “Thou shalt not lie.” Another one of those categorical rules that is often easy to remember is “Thou shalt not kill.” Few people would generally disagree that killing another human is wrong. The exception, however, appears to be when the state is doing it to a criminal convicted of murder. This is the government’s attempt to prove that murder is wrong. The justification for capital punishment is allegedly another Biblical principle: an eye for an eye (lex talionis). If the United States of America truly believed in the Sixth Commandment, it would not hesitate to devote all the resources necessary, including U.S. troops, to the country of Ukraine to put an end to the atrocities being committed there by Russian forces since February 24, 2022. Furthermore, it would track Vladimir Putin down in his palatial hideout and assassinate him, putting him out of the world’s misery altogether.

The utilitarian philosophy of John Stuart Mill fully supports such action because it would create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people (Shafer-Landau 127). The author of The Fundamentals of Ethics points out G.E. Moore’s belief that acts that maximize the amount of goodness in the world, thereby making it the best place it can be, are morally right (124). Shafer-Landau also notes how morality under the utilitarian branch of consequentialism would require the assassination of leaders such as Vladimir Putin because it is reasonably expected to be optimific, having the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. Allowing him to pursue a policy of reconstituting the Soviet Union has already been and would continue to be detrimental to millions more people than those presently suffering in Ukraine. The end of alleviating both current and future misery would justify the means, i.e., killing him. Furthermore, the principle of utility demands it. This ultimate moral standard of utilitarianism states that an action is required because it does more to improve the overall amount of well-being in the world than any other action that could have been taken under certain circumstances (Shafer-Landau 127). A truly moral outlook is one that goes beyond showing concern for ourselves but displays impartial concern for everyone whose well-being may be affected by our actions (Shafer-Landau 132). Actions that cause tremendous suffering can be right if they prevent even greater suffering (Shafter-Landau 128).

There are no intrinsically wrong actions according to utilitarianism because the morality of an action depends on its results, and no moral rule is absolute, not even a prohibition on killing other humans, giving utilitarians a flexible view of justice (Shafer-Landau 134-35). Summarily imposing the death penalty on Putin would be an act of justice, giving him his just deserts (Shafer-Landau 125). As long as assassinating a county’s leader will maximize the well-being of other people—perhaps not just the citizens of that nation but also people living in neighboring countries—it is possible to justify such action. Putin’s war of aggression is already tantamount to a third world war because of the repercussions it is having. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, the level of unhappiness has exploded around the globe. Not only are Ukrainians, particularly in the eastern part of their country, living horrible lives, but average Russians are having to deal with the consequences of sanctions imposed on their country in retaliation for their government’s unprovoked actions. People throughout the rest of Europe and even in the United States are feeling the direct effects of bans on importing Russian energy resources in the form of drastically higher prices for gasoline, natural gas, and groceries. Removing Putin both from power and existence would have across-the-board benefits for well-being and happiness in every corner of the planet. First and foremost, it would end the senseless killing of innocent Ukrainians. Second, a takeover of Russia’s oil and natural gas industry, allowing increased production, would cause gasoline prices to fall overnight. Proceeds from the sale of the country’s natural resources would cover a significant portion of the cost of rebuilding the country that has been decimated by constant aerial and artillery bombardment. Third, supplies of Ukrainian grain could finally be exported and help drive down the cost of food and feed people in desperate need of those shipments. Moreover, the Russians could finally get their own country back by receiving the chance to hold free and fair elections and oust the oligarchs.

Taking an opposing viewpoint, German philosopher Immanuel Kant would reject the act of killing Vladimir Putin based on his theory of categorical imperatives. Aside from the Sixth Commandment, even simply applying the Golden Rule from the Bible (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) would be a deterrent against wanton political assassination (Shafer-Landau 169). The county taking action to assassinate Vladimir Putin in this instance would not want either Russia itself or some other country to put a bounty on the head of its own leader. Kant devised the principle of universalizability, essentially a rephrasing of the Golden Rule. It states that an act is morally acceptable only if its maxim (the principle behind it) can be applied by other people as well. In this case, it clearly prohibits killing Putin (Shafer-Landau 170-71). Kant also issued a principle of humanity, according to which humans should always be treated as an end and never as a mere means (Shafer-Landau 183). Assassinating Putin would be considered treating him as a means to achieving the goal of ending the war in Ukraine. Shafer-Landau explains how Kant claimed that human beings are rational and autonomous and, for those reasons, have special moral status (184). Furthermore, the principle of humanity prevents taking the life of a human being because doing so denies the victim the respect and dignity they are owed and would deprive Putin of the autonomy to make his own decisions (Shafer-Landau 185-86). Yet, he has already demonstrated through the autonomous decision to start an unprovoked war that his intent is to limit the autonomy of an entire country and its people to decide their own fate by making their institutions more democratic and joining the European Union and/or NATO. Nevertheless, Kant also stressed the importance of justice in his philosophy (Shafer-Landau 191). Could there be any more just action than removing a homicidal maniac from society to prevent him from killing further? Under consistent application of lex talionis, he would be chained all by himself in the middle of an undamaged apartment building, and that structure would be subjected to targeted shelling by Ukrainian artillery troops, gradually chipping away at the edges of the building until it collapsed with Putin still inside.

According to utilitarianism, the only intrinsically valuable good in the world is the attitudinal pleasure of happiness, a sense of true enjoyment, ranging from mild contentment to elation. That level of enjoyment is the key to a good life, particularly when the enjoyment is sustained (Shafer-Landau 24-5). As defined by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, the most pleasant condition is one of inner peace through moderation in all things and intellectual clarity about what is truly important in life (Shafer-Landau 25). Too many nations in Europe are being robbed of their ability to live good lives because of the misguided policies of one man. Great thinkers such as John Stuart Mill have provided the world with a guide to dealing with such individuals.

 

Work Cited

Schafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. Fifth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2021, New York.