I’m thinking of the Bentham version of Utilitarianism, not the Mill kind. In other words, what’s right is not just what’s useful but what brings or preserves pleasure.
So, according to this view, is punishment ever right? I mean, by its very definition, punishment is the infliction of pain. That cannot be coherent with a utilitarian view. But I don’t think a utilitarian would deny that there needs to be a means of deterring unwanted or immoral behavior for the sake of the greater good (or greater pleasure) - so I would guess that a utilitarian would recommending finding as many means as possible for deterrence except punishment, and only use punishment as a last resort. And even then, it’s not good that punishment had to be used, just necessary.
What does everyone else think? Is there no room for punishment in a strict utilitarian philosophy?
I think that there’s a pretty straightforward utilitarian justification of punishment and that is that a society in which people are punished is more fun in general for everyone than a society in which people are not. Also it is important to remember that deterrence is not the only funciton of punishment. Punishment has all kinds of roles to play in society, especially communicative ones, and it is a consideration of the value of these multiple benefits of punishment that would motivate a utilitarain’s acceptance of it I guess.
Personally I’d plump for Feinberg’s communicative justification of punishment. Doing and Deserving, Feinberg’s central text, is well worth a read.
Punishment does not always require the infliction of pain. It could just be an absence of pleasure. Since then there would be no pain inflicted then it would fit in with a utilitarianism philosophy.
Deterrence and rehabilitation are clearly utilitarian objectives. But still, I don’t think punishment per se fits in the utilitarian plan. Punishment seems to entail something done after the fact, as a sort of evening of the score. But deterrence and rehabilitation should rather be in anticipation of the future, i.e. whether or not one has committed a crime is only a factor insofar as it indicates that another crime is likely to be committed in the future.