But the point is, whether it’s the greatest good for the greatest number, or maximising happiness (probably the same thing) – an injustice has been done to one person, therefore the situation is unfair.
I’m saying that for justice to be done, each person has to be reasonably happy with the utility they have received. If the majority has benefited from one innocent person’s unjust misfortune, then the majority are not reasonably happy, but unreasonably happy. The innocent person is reasonably unhappy. So, overall, a crime has been done, even if it makes the majority happy.
“Reasonable” means taking other ethical principles into account. It’s effectively the same as “the maximum benefit and minimum harm available” to someone. If there was a choice over whether to frame an innocent person, then they didn’t need to be framed, more benefit was available to them, and the principle of fairness has been violated.
the agreed laws of society should be dispensed without emotion as if with a blindfold on.
It depends on the emotions. There are ethical emotions like a desire for fairness, and these need to be taken into account. What also needs to be taken into account is the effect on the victim.
How does Paul Bloom’s “rational compassion” work? I think probably he’s talking about justice or fairness, which can be reduced to a rational formula (maximum benefit and minimum harm available to all concerned or affected).
