Article Sidebar

Submitted
December 5, 2024
Accepted
January 22, 2025
Published
January 31, 2025
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 364 Download : 471

Main Article Content

Abstract

One of the most influential schools of legal thought in the world is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is built upon the famous maxim of its pioneer, Jeremy Bentham, "the greatest happiness for the greatest number". The core of Bentham's utilitarian teaching focuses on the quantitative aspect of benefits for the general public. The concept of quantitative thinking is the main strength of Bentham's utilitarian theory as it produces legal impartiality, but this concept also brings the greatest criticism, with the emergence of views that utilitarianism does not take into account the balance of individual and societal interests. This is a doctrinal research that aims to explore the history of the birth of utilitarianism, its core teachings, development, and, criticism, as well as the refinement of utilitarianism, especially related to the issue of balance between public and individual interests. The results of this study conclude that the problem of the balance of public and individual interests in utilitarianism is mainly caused by the combination of the consequentialist and aggregative characters of utilitarianism. There have been attempts to be overcome such imbalance with the birth of rule utilitarianism and indirect utilitarianism as well as social choice theory and the capability approach.
Keywords: Balance, Public Interest, Individual Interest, Utilitarianism


Abstrak
Salah satu aliran pemikiran hukum yang sangat berpengaruh di dunia adalah Utilitarianisme. Utilitarianisme dibangun berdasarkan maxim yang sangat terkenal dari pelopornya, Jeremy Bentham, “the greatest happines for the greatest number”. Inti ajaran utilitas Bentham berfokus pada aspek kuantitas kemanfaatan bagi masyarakat umum. Konsep pemikiran kuantitatif merupakan kekuatan utama dari teori utilitarianisme Bentham karena menghasilkan imparsialitas hukum, namun konsep tersebut juga mendatangkan kritik terbesar, dengan munculnya pandangan yang menyatakan utilitarianisme tidak memperhitungkan keseimbangan kepentingan individu dan masyarakat. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian doktrinal dan bertujuan untuk mengetahui sejarah lahir, inti ajaran, perkembangan, dan, kritik, serta penyempurnaan utilitarianisme, khususnya terkait dengan isu keseimbangan antara kepentingan umum dan individu. Hasil penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa persoalan keseimbangan kepentingan umum dan individu dalam utilitarianisme terutama disebabkan karena perpaduan karakter konsekuensialis dan agregatif utilitarianisme dan telah coba diatasi dengan lahirnya rule utilitarianism dan indirect utilitarianism serta teori pilihan sosial dan capability approach.
Kata Kunci: Keseimbangan, Kepentingan Umum, Kepentingan Individu, Utilitarianisme

Keywords

Balance Public Interest Individual Interest Utilitarianism

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 V. Andri Hananto

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite
Hananto, V. A. (2025). Utilitarianisme dan Keseimbangan Antara Kepentingan Umum dan Kepentingan Individu. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 32(1), 72–98. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol32.iss1.art4
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Al-Balqa Applied University, Irbid, Jordan., Basheer Al-Zu’bi, Amal Ababneh, and Fourat Altarawneh. “Bentham’s Utilitarianism Ethical Theory and Its Application in the Triage System: A Scholarly Philosophical Paper.” Jordan Journal of Nursing Research 3, no. 3 (2024). https://doi.org/10.14525/JJNR.v3i3.02.

  2. Arneson, Richard J. “Primary Goods Reconsidered.” Noûs 24, no. 3 (June 1990): 429. https://doi.org/10.2307/2215774.

  3. Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: Oxford Clarendon Press, 1823.

  4. “Birmingham Pub Bombing.” In Birmingham Pub Bombing, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/event/Birmingham-pub-bombing.

  5. Bruder, Martin, and Attila Tanyi. “Overdemanding Consequentialism? An Experimental Approach.” Utilitas 26, no. 3 (September 2014): 250–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820814000065.

  6. Canady, Richwen, and Desfantio Wuidjaja. “Tindakan Hacking dan Profesi Hacker: Persoalan Etis antara Utilitarianisme dan Deontologi.” Praxis: Jurnal Filsafat Terapan 1, no. 1 (2022).

  7. Cekic, Nenad. “Utilitarianism and the Idea of University: A Short Ethical Analysis.” Filozofija i Drustvo 29, no. 1 (2018): 73–87. https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1801073C.

  8. Douglas, David M. “Towards a Just and Fair Internet: Applying Rawls’ Principles of Justice to Internet Regulation.” Ethics and Information Technology 17, no. 1 (March 2015): 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-015-9361-1.

  9. Dwi Putro, Widodo. Filsafat Hukum: Pergulatan Filsafat Barat, Filsafat Timur, Filsafat Islam, Pemikiran Hukum Indonesia Hingga Metajuridika Di Metaverse. Jakarta: Penerbit Kencana, 2024.

  10. Edward, Terence Rajivan. “Rawls versus Utilitarianism: The Subset Objection.” E-LOGOS 23, no. 2 (December 1, 2016): 37–41. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.e-logos.435.

  11. Felzmann, Heike. “Utilitarianism as an Approach to Ethical Decision Making in Health Care.” In Key Concepts and Issues in Nursing Ethics, edited by P. Anne Scott, 29–41. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49250-6_3.

  12. Graafland, Johan. Ethics and Economics: An Introduction to Free Markets, Equality and Happiness. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003181835.

  13. Indonesia, Republik. Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2012 tentang Pengadaan Tanah Bagi Pembangunan Untuk Kepentingan Umum, Pub. L. No. 2 (2012).

  14. Iswahyudi, Iswahyudi, and Naupal Asnawi. “Menuju Kebijakan Sosial Berorientasi Kapabilitas: Telaah Pemikiran Amartya Sen Dan Martha Nussbaum,.” MULTIKULTURA 3, no. 4 (2024). https://doi.org/10.7454/multikultura.v3i4.1071.

  15. J Graafland, Johan. “Utilitarianism.” In Handbook of Economics and Ethics, 2009.

  16. Komenská, Katarína. “Moral Motivation in Humanitarian Action.” Human Affairs 27, no. 2 (April 1, 2017): 145–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2017-0013.

  17. L Tanya, Bernard, Yoan N Simanjuntak, and Markus Y Hage. Teori Hukum: Strategi Tertib Manusia Lintas Ruang Dan Generasi. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing, 2019.

  18. Latipulhayat, Atip. “Khazanah: Jeremy Bentham.” PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 2, no. 2 (2015).

  19. Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna de, and Peter Singer. UTILITARIANISM: A Very Short Introduction. London: Oxford University Press, 2017.

  20. Lermatan, Petrus. “Utilitarianisme John Stuart Mill Dan Relevansinya Bagi Aktivitas Ekonomi.” Jurnal Seri Mitra (Refleksi Ilmiah Pastoral) 3, no. 1 (2024).

  21. Malook, Saad. “Utilitarianism, Social Justice, and the Trolley Problem: An Ethical Theory without Egalitarian Morality.” Journal of Social & Organizational Matters 3, no. 2 (June 14, 2024): 124–43. https://doi.org/10.56976/jsom.v3i2.70.

  22. Mason, Elinor. “WHAT IS CONSEQUENTIALISM?” Think 8, no. 21 (2009): 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175608000341.

  23. Mautner, Thomas. “Indirect Utilitarianism.” In The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, n.d. https://www.utilitarianism.com/indiutil.htm.

  24. Mezak, Meray Hendrik. “Jenis, Metode Dan Pendekatan Dalam Penelitian Hukum.” Law Review: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pelita Harapan 5, no. 3 (2006).

  25. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. digitized by the Internet Archive, 1863. https://ia804500.us.archive.org/24/items/isbn_9781543003963/isbn_9781543003963.pdf.

  26. Muharir, and Slamet Haryono. “Konsep Utilitarianisme Jhon Stuart Mill Relevansinya Terhadap Behavioral Economics.” Ekonomica Sharia: Jurnal Pemikiran dan Pengembangan Ekonomi Syariah 9, no. 1 (August 9, 2023): 109–22. https://doi.org/10.36908/esha.v9i1.765.

  27. Mulgan, Tim. Understanding Utilitarianism. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014.

  28. Muwahid. Hukum Pengadaan Tanah Bagi Pembangunan Untuk Kepentingan Umum. Pamekasan: Duta Media Publishing, 2020.

  29. Nurhayati, Yati, Ifrani, and M. Yasir Said. “METODOLOGI NORMATIF DAN EMPIRIS DALAM PERSPEKTIF ILMU HUKUM.” Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Indonesia 2, no. 1 (January 17, 2021): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.51749/jphi.v2i1.14.

  30. Pratiwi, Endang, Theo Negoro, and Hassanain Haykal. “Teori Utilitarianisme Jeremy Bentham: Tujuan Hukum Atau Metode Pengujian Produk Hukum?” Jurnal Konstitusi 19, no. 2 (June 2, 2022): 268. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1922.

  31. “Prisoner’s Dilemma.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/.

  32. Rahmatullah, Indra. “Filsafat Hukum Utilitarianisme: Konsep dan Aktualisasinya Dalam Hukum di Indonesia.” ADALAH 5, no. 4 (August 8, 2021): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.15408/adalah.v5i4.22026.

  33. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice:  Revised Edition. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1971.

  34. Reichlin, Massimo. “Hume and Utilitarianism: Another Look at an Age-Old Question.” Journal of Scottish Philosophy 14, no. 1 (March 2016): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3366/jsp.2016.0111.

  35. Rosidi, Ahmad, M Zainuddin, and Ismi Arifiana. “Metode Dalam Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dan Sosiologis (Field Research).” Journal Law and Government 2, no. 1 (February 27, 2024): 46. https://doi.org/10.31764/jlag.v2i1.21606.

  36. Ruiz Sanjuan, Cesar. “John Stuart Mill on the Relation between Society and Individual Regarding Personal Liberty.” Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics II, no. 3 (September 30, 2018): 66–88. https://doi.org/10.17323/2587-8719-2018-II-3-66-88.

  37. Runesi, Wilhelmus F. N. “Kritik Amartya Sen terhadap Naluri, Nalar, dan Nilai dalam Diri Manusia Ekonomi.” MELINTAS 39, no. 3 (March 22, 2024): 282–306. https://doi.org/10.26593/mel.v39i3.7824.

  38. Ryadi, Agustinus. “HENRY SIDGWICK’S RECONCILIATION IN ETHICS.” Journal Studia Philosophica et Theologica 5, no. 2 (2005).

  39. Septiansyah, Zainal B., and Muhammad Ghalib. “Konsepsi Utilitarianisme dalam Filsafat Hukum dan Implementasinya di Indonesia.” Ijtihad 34, no. 1 (April 4, 2019). https://doi.org/10.15548/ijt.v34i1.3.

  40. Smart, J. J. C., and Bernard Williams. Utilitarianism for and Against. 27th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008.

  41. Stuart Mill, John. On Liberty. London: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1879.

  42. Sunaryo. “Amartya Sen Tentang Teori Keadilan John Rawls: Kritik Pendekatan Komparatif Atas Pendekatan Institusionalisme.” RESPONS 23, no. 1 (2018).

  43. Sunaryo, Sunaryo. Sunaryo, Etika Berbasis Kebebasan Amartya Sen: Integrasi Kebebasan Dalam Pilihan Sosial, Demokrasi Dan Pembangunan. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2017.

  44. Taufik, Andi Darma, Fitri Wahyuni, and Hendra Gunawan. “ANALISIS SEJARAH DAN PERKEMBANGAN TEORI UTILITARIANISME TERHADAP HUKUM INDONESIA.” Yurisprudentia: Jurnal Hukum Ekonomi 10, no. 1 (May 29, 2024): 88–102. https://doi.org/10.24952/yurisprudentia.v10i1.11107.

  45. West, Henry R. An Introduction to Mill’s Utilitarian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

  46. Wolff, Jonathan. An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006.

  47. Yanto, Andri. Mazhab-Mazhab Hukum: Suatu Pengantar Memahami Dimensi Pemikiran Hukum. Jakarta: Penerbit Segap Pustaka, 2021.