1.

0 INTRODUCTION

Over the years, the cyber world as a result of technological advancements has greatly improved. But
notwithstanding, criminal activities have also become a prominent thing in cyber world. Criminal
activities as far as morality [as well the laws of the state] is concerned are questionable. But
notwithstanding, why should one be deprived from criminal acts? In other worlds why should
criminal activities by disrupted since it is out of one’s own free will that he commits the crime? To
give an answer to this question, the utilitarian school will quickly propose that one should act in a
manner that will produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. 1 Here then, they will
subscribe to cybercrime if and only if it promotes the greatest good. Given then that cybercrime
prominently affect all that the society at large, the utilitarian theory will obviously stand as an
opposition to it.

Cy

2.0 THE CYBER WORLD

The cyber world is a big world were almost all of our daily activities such communication, education,
banking and marketing can be carried out. And due to the nature of this world which is made
assessable at all time in as much as one possesses the facilities needed for the accessibility of this
world, the cyber world have really made live easy and enjoyable. But one thing is certain; in as much
as we cannot overemphasis the benefits and the contributions of technology and computer to the
society, we cannot on the other hand overlook the fact that there are some ill-activities that have being
erupted or brought to being due to the existence of these advanced technological facilities. In other
words, in as much as the cyber world has it positive influence on the society, there are also some
negative influence that it brings along. And as a matter fact, the cyber world despite its importance to
the society raises lots of ethical issues.

2.1 Cyber Crime

When we speak of cybercrime, we are making reference to all forms of criminal activities that are
being carried out in the cyber world; “the use of computer an instrument to further illegal ends, such
as committing fraud, trafficking in child pornography and intellectual property, stealing identity or
violating privacy”.2 Now let us consider some of these activities that are regarded as cybercrime

2.1.1 Cyber-Terrorism

Research has shown that almost all terrorist groups are making use of the internet, and have even gone
as far establishing their own website. 3 With the use of the internet these terrorist groups can more
effectively run their activities, since they can easily get to anyone in the globe through the cyber
world. Here then, getting to their supporter as well as members across the globe with less or no
possibility of getting detected is made possible. 4 These accomplishments are made possible due to the
nature of the internet which offers some unique benefits to its users beginning from the fact that it is
an unregulated world which can assessed by anyone to the fact that it is a system that requires low
level of skills.

2.1.2 Cyber Bullying

1
Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principle of Moral and Legislation (London: Cambridge University
Press, 1789), p. 1.
2
Micheal Aaron, Cybercrime Britannica 22 of jan
3
P. 127
4
P. 127
With coming of technology and computer, the internet has become a medium through which bulling
can be perpetuated. “Students especially adolescent girls are increasingly victims (and sometimes,
perpetrators) of disregarding threatening, and/or sexual explicit messages and images conveying
electronically via cell phones, e-mail, chat rooms and personal online profiles”. 5 Cyber bullying then
deals with every forms of exploit and intimidation that are carried out through the internet [or the
cyber world].

2.1.3 Children Pornography

Pornography has obviously been made prominent with the coming of advanced technology, and due
how advanced the cyber world is, it offers some unique benefits to propagators of child pornography
who can easily carry out their business without being identified. Apart from pornography which has
been made easy and possible with the help of the cyber word, child abuse is also made possible and
easy with the help of this same social media. And this is evidenced in the fact that:

“The world wide web offers adult a means in which to promote and search for sexual
liaisons involving children. Encryption, steganography, remailers and other
anonymizing tools have further aided criminals looking to sexually exploit children
by providing a means by which to conceal their identity and criminal activity from
law enforcement officials and significant others”.6

3.0 UTILITARIANISM

Going back to it etymology, the term utilitarianism is derived from the Latin word “utilis” meaning
useful. As a theory, utilitarianism proposes that an action can be considered morally right if and only
if it is more favourable that unfavourable to a greater number of people. 7 Holding onto the above
definition, we can of utilitarianism as an ethical theory; one that prescribes the qualitative
maximization of good consequences of an action for a group of people. With utilitarianism, the
human person is always reminded that there is a second follow that will either benefit or get hurt by
his or her action.

3.1 Utilitarian Philosophers and their Position

3.1.1 John Stuart Mill

John Stuart is a nineteenth century philosopher/economist. For him, utilitarianism is the ‘Greatest
Happiness’ principle; a principle that hold that actions are right insofar as they tend to promote
happiness.8 Here then, pleasure is of optimal importance since the theory implies the absence of pain
and attainment of pleasure. The human person as opined by this utilitarian theory has the highest end
of his struggle as pleasure.

Mill’s position due to its similarity with the ethical theory of hedonism as propounded by Epicurus
has been in most cases misinterpreted. To fully understand his position on happiness, let us bring
some of his assertion to exposure:

“It is not they but their accusers, who present human nature in a disregarding
light; since the accusation supposes human being to be capable of no pleasures
except those of which swine’s are capable.”9

5
P. 360 Not Cf
6
P. 104 Not Cf
7
Cf. Richard B. Brandt, Morality Utilitarianism and Right (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 129.
8
Cf. Mill John Stuart . Utilitarianism (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957), P.56.
9
Mill John Stuart . Utilitarianism (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957), P.56.
For sure, Mill proposed a theory that opines absolute pleasure; but on the other hand, it is crucial that
we understand what he meant by pleasure. Just like it has been stated above already, the pleasure that
was proposed by Mill is a pleasure that goes beyond sexual satisfaction and all other forms of physical
pleasure. Mill holds that since the human person has faculties which are elevated above animals and as
a matter of fact, he also opines that humans are to be concerned with pleasures that transcends bodily
sensation; a pleasure that concerned with the intellect.

3.1.2 John Rawl

Coming to Rawl, he was a philosopher that propagated the principle of justice and fairness. This very
position of his is made prominent in this very assertion:

“We must maximize the general happiness only if we do so in fair way. An unfair
way of maximizing the general happiness would be to do so by a method which
involves making some people less happy than they might be otherwise”. 10

As opined by Rawl, if one must pursue pleasure and happiness, it is demanded of the person in
question to have justice and fairness as his or her guiding principle. Holding onto this then, it will be
out of place to deprive some of their happiness so as to ensure the happiness of others. For Rawl, the
concept of justice is in itself utilitarian. This is due to the fact that in the course of allowing justice to
prevail, people are always careful not to bridge the freedom of the greatest number while upholding
that of one person or very few person and vice versa. The central point that overshadows Rawl’s
utilitarian view of justice is that: “it does matter except indirectly, how this satisfaction is distributed
among individual any more than it matter except indirectly, how one person distribute his satisfaction
over time”.11 The right to distribution of such satisfaction must yield the maximum fulfillment.

3.1.3 George Edward Moore

For Moore, the end in anyway cannot be a justification for the means. And as a matter fact, right and
wrong cannot in anyway be ascertained by examining the actual consequence of an action. Advancing
in his argument, Moore avers that what is

3.1.4 Karl Popper

Coming from a completely different position, Popper came with his negative utilitarianism. Here then,
Popper avers that our primary concern should not be based on maximizing happiness, but also on
minimizing suffering. By suffering here, Popper is not just making reference to mere unhappiness for
since it idea of suffering extends to misery and actual pain.12

3.2 Types of Utilitarianism

3.2.1 Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism directs its focus on action, for it proposes that rightness and wrongness should be
based on consequences. Here then, the consequence of an action determines if the action is write or
wrong. For this theory then, actions that yield good result for the greater number of people are
considered good. While on the other hand, actions that bring about disaster and pain for the greater
number of people are considered bad actions. As far as act utilitarianism is concerned, the nature of

10
Rosaline Ekman, Readings in the Problem of Ethics (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965), p. 31.
11
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (England: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 26.
12
Cf. Rosaline Ekman, Readings in the Problem of Ethics (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965), p. 31.
the action in question is not put into consideration for insofar as the action in question pleases a greater
number people, the action is considered right.13

In some cases position of act utilitarianism is considered as being extreme, since it implies that
whatever is done so as to bring about the happiness of a greater number of people should be
considered right irrespective of the law. Here then, breaking of the law is excused from being wrong
insofar as it brings about the happiness of a greater number of people.

3.2.2 Rule Utilitarianism

Rule Utilitarianism examines the consequences of having people follow a particular rule as well as the
overall utility of the rule in question. Simply put, “it opines that the right action is that which is in
consonances with those rules which will maximize utility if everyone accepts them”. 14 With all of
these then, it is of optimal importance to put into consideration the greatest happiness of the greatest
number of people before the adoption of a rule, for as opined by rule utilitarianism, rule that will bring
about pain and misery for a greater number of people should not for any reason be adopted.

3.2.3 Social Utilitarianism

Social utilitarianism as a theory opines that the guiding principle for all should be the happiness of the
community at large. Consequently, social utilitarianism asserts that one have to look out for the
happiness of other members of the society. 15 Given that nature have subjected the human person under
the influence of two sovereign matter, pain and pleasure, the advocates of social epistemology asserts
that the human person should always strive towards making themselves happy, and as a matter of fact
one should not in any way cause pains for the other.

3.3 Jeremy Bentham and his Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism as a theory can be traced back to Jeremy Bentham who is today regarded as the
originator of the theory, since it is with him that it is given a definite formulation. In his Magnum
Opus: An Introduction to the Principle of Morals and Legislation, he proposed a definition that
presented utilitarianism as an ethical theory which influences one to act in a manner that will bring
about the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. 16 For an action to be considered right
then, Bentham is of the opinion that it must tend towards the happiness of the greatest number of
people. Here then, the rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent on the consequence. Not just
the consequence, but the consequence on the greatest number of people. For this principle then, all
actions are right in as much as they bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number of
people.

Given that “nature has placed the human person under the governing power of two sovereign masters:
pain and pleasure”17 and as a matter fact, the human person as opined by Bentham should always tend
towards happiness; not just his happiness but the happiness of the society at large. Due to the theory
they hold onto, utility for the propagators of utilitarianism imply happiness and pleasure and as a
matter of fact, they opine that constant search for happiness and pleasure should sever as the driving
force for all.

4.0 CYBER CRIME AND UNTILITARIANIST THEORY

13

14
Cf. Ben Ojukwu Ebo, Living Issues in Ethics (Nsukka: Afro-Orbis Publishing Company 2005), p. 47.
15
Cf. Ben Ojukwu Ebo, Living Issues in Ethics (Nsukka: Afro-Orbis Publishing Company 2005), p. 49.
16
Cf. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Priciple of Morals and Legislation (London: Cambridge University
Press, 1789), p. 1.
17
Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Priciple of Morals and Legislation, p. 3
Crime as it is generally understood is associated with things that are considered illegal; things that are
against the law. For one to be considered a criminal, it follows then that the person in question must
have gone against the law of the state in one way or the other. Notwithstanding, it is crucial that we
put into consideration the fact that there exist a sharp distinction between law and morality, for one
can be immoral, but yet not a criminal.

Given that law is a rule and measure of acts, of which the human person is induced to act or restrained
from acting,18 all are expected to abide by the law. Simply put, the human person is subjected to
whatever the law offers. If we examine law with the lens of utilitarianism, it simply mean that the
human person is subjected to act in a manner that will bring about the happiness of the greatest
number of people, for whatever does not bring about the happiness of the greatest number of people
will not be considered a law if subjected to utilitarianism.

If we consider utilitarianism as the yardstick for measuring that which is lawful, will cybercrime be
considered lawful? If we are to examine the consequences of cybercrime, can utilitarianism certify
cybercrime? Given that utilitarianism excuse unlawful acts that brings about the happiness of the
greatest number of people from being wrong [inasmuch as the act in question brought about the
happiness of a greater number of people], can we

CYBER CRIME AND UNTILITARIANIST THEORY

EVALUATION

CONCLUSION

18
Summa Theologiae I-II, q 90-97.